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

Amy Petersen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-10-02 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 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 17 17 34 1.360 0.2184 0.2161 — —
2011-12 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 9 32 41 1.640 0.2634 0.2491 — —
2012-13 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 21 27 48 1.920 0.3084 0.2804 — —
■ 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 Penn State D1 WCHA-W — 35 14 16 30 0.857
2015-16 Penn State D1 WCHA-W — 37 8 21 29 0.784
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.78
2015-16 · Penn State
+241.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2439
Forward overall
#85
Forward born in 1994
#251
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Paige Voight
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.76 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Casey Leveillee
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Vermont (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Charly Dalhquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mariah Gardner
Minnesota ·
0.071 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Paige Voight
Merrimack ·
0.559 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Gunderson
Lindenwood ·
0.171 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.