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

Erin Martin

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
2008-09 Milton NE-Prep-Girls 24 4 5 9 0.380 0.2358 0.2358 — —
■ 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
2015-16 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 21 19 15 34 1.619
2014-15 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 23 5 19 24 1.043
2013-14 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 21 7 7 14 0.667
2012-13 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 24 7 2 9 0.375
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2012-13 · Amherst
+85.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4794
Forward overall
#312
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Sara Hjalmarsson
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Providence (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Demi Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.55 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Danielle Marmer
19U-AAA-W · 2012-13 · 0.70 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Brooklynn Schugel
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.54 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Wente
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.54 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Sara Hjalmarsson
Providence ·
0.657 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Demi Gardner
Minnesota State ·
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Danielle Marmer
Quinnipiac ·
0.108 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.