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

Andrea Westgaard 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 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 25 8 6 14 0.560 0.0846 0.0846 — —
2014-15 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 24 3 7 10 0.417 0.0629 0.0629 — —
2015-16 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 25 13 8 21 0.840 0.1268 0.1268 — —
2016-17 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 25 12 19 31 1.240 0.1872 0.1872 — —
■ 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
2020-21 Johnson & Wales D3 — — 0 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Johnson & Wales D3 — — 26 8 10 18 0.692
2018-19 Johnson & Wales D3 — — 25 4 8 12 0.480
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2018-19 · Johnson & Wales
+243.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5633
Forward overall
#1188
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Natalie Snodgrass
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ UConn (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Sydney Brodt
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.32 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jackie Pieper
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.32 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Madison Woo
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Brown (0.52 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.12 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Natalie Snodgrass
UConn ·
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Sydney Brodt
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jackie Pieper
Merrimack ·
0.324 Developing
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.