icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Austin Bruins | NAHL | 30 | 24 | 5 | 93.4% | 1.85 | 6 | 0.9843 | 87.5% |
| 2025-26 | Lincoln Stars | USHL | 3 | 0 | 3 | 81.6% | 5.18 | 0 | 0.9983 | 74.9% |
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 34 | 24 | 7 | 93.2% | 1.81 | 5 | 0.9843 | 90.6% |
| 2024-25 | Sioux Falls Stampede | USHL | 3 | 0 | 1 | 81.8% | 4.21 | 0 | 0.9983 | 78.0% |
| 2023-24 | — | AJHL | 40 | 22 | 16 | 91.2% | 3.05 | 5 | 0.9700 | 89.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli Pulver | BCHL | 92.4% | 86.7% | Minnesota | 95.8% | 1.00 |
| Max Beckford | NAHL | 94.0% | 88.0% | Bentley | 90.2% | 1.84 |
| J.J. Cataldo | NAHL | 91.8% | 86.1% | Army | 92.2% | 2.41 |
| Isak Posch | NAHL | 92.6% | 86.5% | St. Cloud State | 90.1% | 2.93 |
| Charles-Edward Gravel | BCHL | 93.0% | 87.5% | Mercyhurst | 90.7% | 3.22 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tade Carman | NCDC | 92.6% | 87.6% | Tufts | D3 | 89.9% | 3.15 |
| Brandon Collett | EHL | 92.8% | 87.5% | Castleton | D3 | 90.1% | 4.52 |
| Filip Grancarov | EHL | 92.3% | 87.0% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 88.1% | 2.99 |
| Ryan Crowshaw | NCDC | 91.8% | 87.4% | Arcadia | D3 | 94.6% | 1.75 |
| Alexei Masanko | OJHL | 92.5% | 88.1% | Manhattanville | D3 | 91.3% | 3.27 |
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.