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

Geneva Lloyd

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
2005-06 Taft NE-Prep-Girls 22 11 5 16 0.730 0.4530 0.4530 — —
2006-07 Taft NE-Prep-Girls 19 0 15 15 0.790 0.4902 0.4902 — —
2007-08 Taft NE-Prep-Girls 22 9 7 16 0.730 0.4530 0.4530 — —
2008-09 Taft NE-Prep-Girls 23 4 1 5 0.220 0.1365 0.1365 — —
■ 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
2012-13 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 24 13 14 27 1.125
2011-12 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 27 9 15 24 0.889
2010-11 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 27 12 20 32 1.185
2009-10 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 28 9 22 31 1.107
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.11
2009-10 · Amherst
+345.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#667
Defenseman overall
#229
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Ebba Strandberg
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Maine (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Kenzie Prater
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.83 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Allison Roethke
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Emma Turbyville
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 0.39 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mekenzie Steffen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ebba Strandberg
Maine ·
0.333 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Kenzie Prater
Quinnipiac ·
0.432 Strong D
actual D2/3 PPG
Allison Roethke
Quinnipiac ·
0.000 No data
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.