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

Bailey Thompson 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
2013-14 Mounds View High (women) USHS-MN-W 26 10 10 20 0.769 0.1161 0.1161 — —
2014-15 Mounds View High (women) USHS-MN-W 25 11 14 25 1.000 0.1510 0.1510 — —
2015-16 Mounds View High (women) USHS-MN-W 25 9 9 18 0.720 0.1087 0.1087 — —
■ 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
2019-20 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 9 8 17 0.680
2018-19 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 9 10 19 0.760
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.76
2018-19 · Bethel
+607.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6372
Forward overall
#1479
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Kippin Keller
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.68 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Janna Haeg
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.76 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kendall Williamson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.76 PPG
→ Colgate
0.11 No data
NCAAe PPG
Sofia Poinar
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.76 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kourtney Menches
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 0.34 PPG
→ Vermont (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kippin Keller
Minnesota ·
0.056 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Janna Haeg
St. Cloud State ·
0.303 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Kendall Williamson
Colgate ·
0.000 No data
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.