icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Watertown Shamrocks | NAHL | 16 | 6 | 7 | 88.6% | 3.78 | 0 | 0.9843 | 87.6% |
| 2025-26 | Waterloo Black Hawks | USHL | 3 | 1 | 2 | 86.4% | 4.03 | 0 | 0.9987 | 83.9% |
| 2023-24 | Kingston Frontenacs | OHL | 12 | 5 | 3 | 83.3% | 4.57 | 0 | 1.0008 | 87.2% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-27 | Michigan State | D1 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacob Biron | CCHL | 90.9% | 87.1% | Army | 92.3% | 1.68 |
| Jared Moe | USHL | 90.7% | 88.2% | Minnesota | 91.5% | 2.46 |
| Calvin Vachon | USHL | 89.6% | 86.9% | Alaska Fairbanks | 89.7% | 3.11 |
| Ryan Bischel | USHL | 90.5% | 87.8% | Notre Dame | 91.5% | 2.52 |
| Nathan Krawchuk | OHL | 90.1% | 87.3% | RPI | 90.9% | 2.82 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jarret Bovarnick | EHL | 88.3% | 87.5% | Suffolk | D3 | 87.2% | 4.52 |
| Ryan Kenny | USPHL-Premier | 93.5% | 89.9% | Stevenson | D3 | 89.6% | 2.95 |
| Tyler Fromolz | NA3HL | 92.0% | 86.3% | Marian | D3 | 88.3% | 3.85 |
| Zach Dosan | NA3HL | 92.1% | 86.7% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 72.5% | 6.60 |
| Michael Paterson-Jones | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 88.9% | Wilkes | D3 | 89.5% | 3.08 |
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.