icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Dubuque Fighting Saints | USHL | 19 | 8 | 8 | 88.7% | 3.46 | 0 | 0.9983 | 82.3% |
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 44 | 21 | 20 | 92.4% | 2.74 | 2 | 0.9843 | 90.7% |
| 2024-25 | Waterloo Black Hawks | USHL | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | 1 | 0.9983 | 96.3% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 24 | 4 | 17 | 89.1% | 3.81 | 0 | 0.9990 | 91.0% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 10 | 3 | 5 | 91.5% | 3.32 | 0 | 0.9843 | 93.3% |
Historical goalies with similar age-adjusted SVe profiles who went on to play NCAA D1.
| Name | Junior League | Junior SV% | Adj SVe | College | NCAA SV% | NCAA GAA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Randazzo | USHL | 88.8% | 82.5% | Air Force | 82.4% | 5.23 |
| Raythan Robbins | USHL | 88.6% | 82.2% | Bemidji State | 80.0% | 5.38 |
| Alexander Tracy | USHL | 89.6% | 83.0% | Minnesota | 87.9% | 2.24 |
| Chad Veltri | USHL | 90.2% | 83.9% | Niagara | 93.1% | 2.10 |
| Jan Spunar | USHL | 90.7% | 84.1% | North Dakota | 91.9% | 1.91 |
Historical goalies with similar age-adjusted SVe profiles who went on to play NCAA D2/D3.
| Name | Junior League | Junior SV% | Adj SVe | College | Div | SV% | GAA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owen Swanbon | USPHL-Premier | 90.4% | 83.4% | Framingham State | D3 | 83.3% | 8.53 |
| Jeffrey Reda | USPHL-Premier | 90.6% | 83.7% | Franklin Pierce | D2 | 85.9% | 5.85 |
| Josh Koziol | NA3HL | 93.3% | 83.8% | Augsburg | D3 | 71.4% | 5.76 |
| Liam Gross | USPHL-Premier | 90.2% | 83.4% | Buffalo State | D3 | 85.7% | 5.75 |
| Nolan Hildebrand | AJHL | 87.4% | 82.5% | Babson | D3 | 87.8% | 3.82 |
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.