icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Edmonton Oilers
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Cedar Rapids RoughRiders | USHL | 40 | 24 | 11 | 88.2% | 2.92 | 0 | 0.9983 | 89.1% |
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 30 | 21 | 6 | 94.8% | 1.24 | 9 | 0.9843 | 97.0% |
| 2024-25 | U.S. National U17 Team | NTDP-U18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 77.8% | 8.00 | 0 | 0.9200 | 71.2% |
| 2024-25 | USNTDP Juniors | USHL | 1 | 0 | 1 | 77.8% | 8.00 | 0 | 0.9983 | 81.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louka Cloutier | USHL | 88.2% | 89.0% | Boston College | 91.0% | 2.34 |
| Ben Kraws | USHL | 89.5% | 90.4% | Miami | 87.1% | 4.12 |
| Kaidan Mbereko | USHL | 89.8% | 90.6% | Colorado College | 92.5% | 2.30 |
| Magnus Chrona | SHL-J20 | 88.9% | 86.1% | Denver | 92.0% | 2.15 |
| Magnus Chrona | SuperElit | 88.9% | 86.1% | Denver | 92.0% | 2.15 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brody Haynes | NCDC | 92.5% | 92.3% | Elmira | D3 | 94.8% | 1.22 |
| Cooper Rautenstrauch | NCDC | 90.6% | 92.2% | Colby | D3 | 93.4% | 2.08 |
| Cooper Rautenstrauch | NAHL | 88.9% | 92.2% | Colby | D3 | 93.4% | 2.08 |
| Nevin Tardif | USPHL-Premier | 90.4% | 87.8% | Worcester State | D3 | 89.8% | 3.54 |
| Vaughn Makar | NAHL | 90.9% | 94.0% | St. Norbert | D3 | 93.2% | 1.73 |
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.