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

Kennedi Mitchell Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense 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 1 2 3 0.120 0.0181 0.0181 — —
2014-15 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 24 2 8 10 0.417 0.0629 0.0629 — —
2015-16 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 25 1 6 7 0.280 0.0423 0.0423 — —
2016-17 Elk River/Zimmerman (women) USHS-MN-W 25 8 6 14 0.560 0.0846 0.0846 — —
■ 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 Bethel D3 MIAC — 9 1 1 2 0.222
2019-20 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 4 4 8 0.320
2018-19 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 2 5 7 0.280
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2018-19 · Bethel
+338.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4030
Defenseman overall
#3349
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Mckenzie Revering
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
McKenna Wesloh
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Emma Turbyville
USHS-W · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Kate Rydland
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.54 PPG
→ Penn State (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Andrea Olson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.58 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mckenzie Revering
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.059 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
McKenna Wesloh
Ohio State ·
0.273 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Emma Turbyville
St. Cloud State ·
0.040 Developing D
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.