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

Cristina Bravi

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
2007-08 Exeter NE-Prep-Girls 22 13 12 25 1.140 0.7074 0.7074 — —
2008-09 Exeter NE-Prep-Girls 26 16 10 26 1.000 0.6205 0.6205 — —
■ 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
2013-14 Williams D3 — SR 16 10 20 30 1.875
2012-13 Williams D3 NESCAC JR 22 6 9 15 0.682
2011-12 Williams D3 NESCAC SO 25 10 16 26 1.040
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.61
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.04
2011-12 · Williams
+70.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#738
Forward overall
#60
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Nicole Schammel
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 4.16 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.63 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Andrea Renner
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 2.00 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.60 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jessie Aney
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 4.36 PPG
→ UConn (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.66 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ivy Dynek
USHS-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.58 No data
NCAAe PPG
Annie Roche
USHS-W · 2012-13 · 1.88 PPG
→ Colgate
0.56 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nicole Schammel
Minnesota State ·
0.611 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrea Renner
Northeastern ·
0.167 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jessie Aney
UConn ·
0.267 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.