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

Natalie Bernstein 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
2011-12 Lake Forest Academy USHS-W 18 25 13 38 2.111 0.6348 0.6348 — —
■ 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
2015-16 Williams D3 NESCAC SR 16 4 2 6 0.375
2014-15 Williams D3 NESCAC JR 16 0 6 6 0.375
2013-14 Williams D3 NESCAC SO 16 1 2 3 0.188
2012-13 Williams D3 NESCAC FR 25 2 3 5 0.200
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.59
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.20
2012-13 · Williams
-66.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#347
Forward overall
#94
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Phoebe Staenz
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 1.38 PPG
→ Yale (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.62 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Bridget Carey
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 1.38 PPG
→ Brown (0.36 D1 FR PPG)
0.62 Average
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Abbenante
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 1.30 PPG
→ Holy Cross (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.59 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Andrea Renner
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 2.00 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nicole Guagliardo
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 2.27 PPG
→ Mercyhurst (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.66 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kora Torkelson
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2015-16
0.643 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Abbey Hardwick
Concordia · 2017-18
0.680 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Emma Faso
William Smith · 2016-17
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.