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

Holly Dietzler 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 Bloomington Jefferson High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 13 5 18 0.720 0.1156 0.1156 — —
2011-12 Bloomington Jefferson High (W) USHS-MN-W 24 3 8 11 0.458 0.0736 0.0736 — —
2012-13 Bloomington Jefferson High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 12 9 21 0.840 0.1349 0.1349 — —
■ 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 Lindenwood D1 — — 33 0 3 3 0.091
2015-16 Lindenwood D1 — — 37 2 2 4 0.108
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.11
2015-16 · Lindenwood
+14.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7365
Forward overall
#1930
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Jessica Bonfe
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.84 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kylie Hanley
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.84 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Vilma Tanskanen
SMLIIGA-W · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Amanda Bäckebo
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Syracuse (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tianna Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jessica Bonfe
Merrimack ·
0.206 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Kylie Hanley
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.143 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Vilma Tanskanen
North Dakota ·
0.182 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.