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

Angelina Cruzal 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
2015-16 San Jose Jr. Sharks 16U AAA 16U-AAA-W 35 12 11 23 0.657 0.2946 0.2946 — —
■ 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
2022-23 Buffalo State D3 — — 25 4 10 14 0.560
2021-22 Buffalo State D3 — — 24 6 4 10 0.417
2020-21 Buffalo State D3 — — 0 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Buffalo State D3 — — 25 3 6 9 0.360
2018-19 Buffalo State D3 — — 24 1 1 2 0.083
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.08
2018-19 · Buffalo State
-67.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2586
Forward overall
#58
in 16U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Lindsay Roethke
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.96 PPG
→ UConn (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Molly Strabley
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Princeton (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emily Bergland
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.04 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.84 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Catherine Skaja
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Lindsay Roethke
UConn ·
0.027 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Molly Strabley
Princeton ·
0.103 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Bergland
Bemidji State ·
0.114 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.