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

Lucy Thiessen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2005-10-13 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
2022-23 Philadelphia Jr Flyers 19U 19U-AAA-W 73 8 21 29 0.397 0.1373 0.1373 — —
2023-24 Philadelphia Jr Flyers 19U 19U-AAA-W 46 2 11 13 0.283 0.0976 0.0976 — —
■ 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
2025-26 Boston University D1 HEA-W FR 19 1 3 4 0.210
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2025-26 · Boston University
+96.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

5%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
95%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2387
Defenseman overall
#298
Defenseman born in 2005
#346
in 19U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Amanda Kimmerle
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ RPI (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Megan Hinze
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Andrea Olson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.58 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Cheyenne Harris
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Union (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Turnquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Amanda Kimmerle
RPI ·
0.059 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Megan Hinze
Minnesota ·
0.182 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrea Olson
Merrimack ·
0.056 Developing D
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.