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

Natasia Burzynski

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: ?
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 Berwick NE-Prep-Girls 15 3 9 12 0.800 0.3681 0.3681 — —
2011-12 Berwick NE-Prep-Girls 18 10 13 23 1.280 0.5889 0.5889 — —
2012-13 Berwick NE-Prep-Girls 20 9 7 16 0.800 0.3681 0.3681 — —
2013-14 Berwick NE-Prep-Girls 24 17 10 27 1.130 0.5199 0.5199 — —
2014-15 Berwick NE-Prep-Girls 29 7 15 22 0.760 0.3497 0.3497 — —
■ 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 Providence D1 HEA-W SO 28 0 1 1 0.036
2015-16 Providence D1 HEA-W FR 33 1 0 1 0.030
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.36
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.03
2015-16 · Providence
-91.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1119
Forward overall
#92
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Karlie Lund
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.17 PPG
→ Princeton (1.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Haley Mack
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.16 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average
NCAAe PPG
Emily Bergland
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.16 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Corbin Boyd
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.16 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Brittany Wheeler
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.16 PPG
→ Yale (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Karlie Lund
Princeton ·
1.182 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Haley Mack
Bemidji State ·
0.371 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Bergland
Bemidji State ·
0.114 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.