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

Charly Dalhquist 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 Eden Prairie High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 11 11 22 0.880 0.1413 0.1413 — —
2012-13 Eden Prairie High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 23 19 42 1.680 0.2698 0.2698 — —
2013-14 Eden Prairie High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 11 24 35 1.400 0.2248 0.2248 — —
2014-15 Eden Prairie High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 8 23 31 1.240 0.1991 0.1991 — —
■ 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
2018-19 Ohio State D1 WCHA-W — 33 14 13 27 0.818
2017-18 Ohio State D1 WCHA-W — 39 8 15 23 0.590
2016-17 North Dakota D1 — — 38 8 7 15 0.395
2015-16 North Dakota D1 — — 29 1 6 7 0.241
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.18
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2015-16 · North Dakota
+34.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3363
Forward overall
#465
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Natalie Snodgrass
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ UConn (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Sydney Brodt
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.32 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Madison Woo
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Brown (0.52 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG
Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.12 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Sena Hanson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Brown (0.63 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
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
Madison Woo
Brown ·
0.517 Average
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.