IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Kate Carfagnini Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2018-19 New Trier High USHS-W 8 2 5 7 0.875 0.2631 0.2631 — —
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2024-25 St. Olaf D3 — SR 25 6 3 9 0.360
2023-24 St. Olaf D3 — JR 23 2 2 4 0.174
2022-23 St. Olaf D3 — SO 23 0 2 2 0.087
2021-22 St. Olaf D3 — FR 20 3 0 3 0.150
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.15
2021-22 · St. Olaf
-33.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

10%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
90%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Amy Petersen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ Penn State (0.78 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Paige Voight
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.76 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Charly Dalhquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mariah Gardner
Minnesota State ·
0.071 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Amy Petersen
Penn State ·
0.784 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Paige Voight
Merrimack ·
0.559 Average
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.