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

Lauren Hespenheide 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
2010-11 Shakopee High (women) USHS-MN-W 24 25 26 51 2.125 0.3413 0.3413 — —
2011-12 Shakopee High (women) USHS-MN-W 25 26 24 50 2.000 0.3212 0.3212 — —
2012-13 Shakopee High (women) USHS-MN-W 25 30 30 60 2.400 0.3854 0.3854 — —
■ 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
2016-17 St. Cloud State D1 WCHA-W — 36 4 7 11 0.306
2015-16 St. Cloud State D1 WCHA-W — 35 5 4 9 0.257
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.31
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.26
2015-16 · St. Cloud State
-16.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1470
Forward overall
#78
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Corbin Boyd
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.42 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Darby Dodds
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.43 PPG
→ Lindenwood
0.39 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brittany Wheeler
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.32 PPG
→ Yale (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Rebekah Kolstad
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.32 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Natasia Burzynski
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Providence (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Corbin Boyd
Minnesota ·
0.269 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Darby Dodds
Lindenwood ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Brittany Wheeler
Yale ·
0.111 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.