icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | North Bay Battalion | OHL | 40 | 24 | 11 | 91.3% | 2.59 | 1 | 1.0008 | 87.6% |
| 2024-25 | — | OJHL | 12 | 7 | 3 | 93.1% | 2.27 | 0 | 0.9700 | 90.9% |
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 10 | 2 | 3 | 90.7% | 2.98 | 1 | 0.9990 | 92.1% |
| 2024-25 | North Bay Battalion | OHL | 12 | 3 | 7 | 87.5% | 4.29 | 0 | 1.0008 | 87.2% |
| 2023-24 | — | OJHL | 31 | 17 | 10 | 91.8% | 2.55 | 3 | 0.9700 | 93.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bryant Marks | NAHL | 89.7% | 87.6% | Alaska Anchorage | 94.1% | 1.33 |
| Marcus Brännman | USHL | 90.3% | 86.6% | Providence | 75.0% | 4.01 |
| Ryan Manzella | NAHL | 90.4% | 88.3% | Michigan Tech | 90.6% | 2.48 |
| Kolby Matthews | BCHL | 90.0% | 87.5% | RIT | 93.3% | 1.69 |
| Chase Clark | USHL | 89.9% | 86.4% | Quinnipiac | 84.0% | 3.06 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chad Lowe | USPHL-Premier | 93.5% | 88.6% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 90.2% | 4.99 |
| Chad Lowe | USPHL-Premier | 93.5% | 88.6% | Morrisville | D3 | 90.2% | 4.99 |
| Cal Wilcox | NCDC | 89.6% | 87.9% | Suffolk | D3 | 89.1% | 4.18 |
| Jackson Fellner | SJHL | 89.9% | 86.4% | Alvernia | D3 | 92.4% | 2.68 |
| Carson Ironside | AJHL | 87.8% | 86.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 89.3% | 2.76 |
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.