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

Katelyn Pantera 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
2012-13 Choate NE-Prep-Girls 22 0 3 3 0.140 0.0869 0.0869 — —
2013-14 Choate NE-Prep-Girls 24 3 4 7 0.290 0.1799 0.1799 — —
2014-15 Choate NE-Prep-Girls 23 10 7 17 0.740 0.4592 0.4592 — —
■ 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
2018-19 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 25 7 6 13 0.520
2017-18 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 25 4 4 8 0.320
2016-17 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 19 3 2 5 0.263
2015-16 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 21 6 8 14 0.667
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.30
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.67
2015-16 · Amherst
+124.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3751
Forward overall
#253
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Catherine Skaja
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Rebekah Kolstad
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.09 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sylvia Marolt
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.12 PPG
→ Bemidji State
0.34 No data
NCAAe PPG
Demi Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.12 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emily Bergland
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.04 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mae Olshansky
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2018-19
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Carolyn Valentine
Norwich · 2010-11
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Shelby Johnson
Salve Regina · 2011-12
0.400 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.