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

Lauren Michalec 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
2011-12 New Trier High USHS-W 23 12 13 25 1.087 0.3269 0.3269 — —
2012-13 New Trier High USHS-W 8 5 2 7 0.875 0.2631 0.2631 — —
■ 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
2013-14 Trinity D3 NESCAC FR 6 0 1 1 0.167
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.27
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.17
2013-14 · Trinity
-38.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#292
Defenseman overall
#651
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Dani Sadek
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.46 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Anna Kilponen
SMLIIGA-W · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christa Vuglar
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.00 PPG
→ RIT (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Grace Bizal
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.16 PPG
→ Boston College (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Kelly
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Dartmouth (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Hayley Walsh
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2011-12
0.194 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Rubinstein
Hamilton · 2011-12
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Julia Ireland
Middlebury · 2006-07
0.308 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.