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

Natasha Rachlin

Position: Defense 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
2007-08 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 28 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2008-09 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 28 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2009-10 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 25 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2010-11 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 1 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2011-12 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 0 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2012-13 Noble & Greenough NE-Prep-Girls 28 1 0 1 0.040 0.0184 0.0184 — —
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC-W SR 29 0 4 4 0.138
2015-16 Harvard D1 ECAC-W JR 32 0 2 2 0.062
2014-15 Harvard D1 ECAC-W SO 16 0 2 2 0.125
2013-14 Harvard D1 ECAC-W FR 34 1 2 3 0.088
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.02
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.09
2013-14 · Harvard
+406.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8402
Defenseman overall
#1698
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Caroline Buckholtz
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.04 PPG
→ Brown
0.02 No data
NCAAe PPG
Hannah Schultz
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.12 PPG
→ Union (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Anna Erickson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.13 PPG
→ Vermont (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Paige Sorensen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.09 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.01 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Katarina Seper
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ RPI (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.03 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Caroline Buckholtz
Brown ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Hannah Schultz
Union ·
0.267 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Anna Erickson
Vermont ·
0.030 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.