icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Detroit Red Wings
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Moncton Wildcats | QMJHL | 50 | 40 | 7 | 92.2% | 2.27 | 3 | 0.9938 | 85.5% |
| 2024-25 | Moncton Wildcats | QMJHL | 16 | 16 | 0 | 94.0% | 1.73 | 3 | 0.9938 | 90.4% |
| 2024-25 | Cedar Rapids RoughRiders | USHL | 6 | 1 | 5 | 88.7% | 2.88 | 1 | 0.9983 | 85.4% |
| 2023-24 | Cedar Rapids RoughRiders | USHL | 32 | 13 | 13 | 86.9% | 3.66 | 0 | 0.9983 | 86.9% |
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 Steinman | QMJHL | 92.3% | 85.4% | Bowling Green | 92.1% | 2.14 |
| Austin Elliott | OHL | 92.4% | 85.7% | UMass Lowell | 88.5% | 3.01 |
| Justen Close | SJHL | 92.8% | 86.0% | Minnesota | 78.6% | 6.09 |
| Joshua Seeley | NAHL | 90.0% | 84.9% | Bentley | 82.6% | 8.58 |
| Noah Pak | OJHL | 94.5% | 86.1% | Yale | 87.2% | 3.86 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jadon Lee | USPHL-Premier | 93.3% | 86.0% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 93.0% | 2.59 |
| Nicholas Von Kaufmann | OJHL | 88.9% | 85.5% | Marian | D3 | 88.6% | 3.25 |
| Tucker Hanson | EHL | 89.0% | 85.7% | Saint Anselm | D2 | 100.0% | — |
| Colby Muise | AJHL | 91.6% | 86.8% | Marian | D3 | 93.2% | 1.77 |
| Matthew Malin | AJHL | 90.7% | 86.5% | St. Olaf | D3 | 90.6% | 2.47 |
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.