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

Lillian Marchant 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
2013-14 Anaheim Lady Ducks 16U AAA 16U-AAA-W 57 26 34 60 1.053 0.4720 0.4720 — —
■ 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
2019-20 Lindenwood D1 WCHA-W — 34 1 2 3 0.088
2018-19 Lindenwood D1 WCHA-W — 33 2 4 6 0.182
2017-18 Lindenwood D1 WCHA-W — 31 3 2 5 0.161
2017-18 Lindenwood D2 CHA-W SO 31 3 2 5 0.161
2016-17 Lindenwood D1 WCHA-W — 32 1 4 5 0.156
2016-17 Lindenwood D2 CHA-W FR 32 1 4 5 0.156
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.40
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.16
2016-17 · Lindenwood
-61.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1009
Forward overall
#14
in 16U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Dana Rasmussen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.62 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.42 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Rebecca Lindblad
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.43 PPG
→ UConn (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.42 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Katie Rooney
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.52 PPG
→ RPI (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.40 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Darby Dodds
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.52 PPG
→ Lindenwood
0.40 No data
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Abbenante
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.54 PPG
→ Holy Cross (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.45 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Casey Brown
Hamilton · 2010-11
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Geneva Lloyd
Amherst · 2006-07
1.107 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Bre Simon
Hamline · 2013-14
1.000 Elite
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.