icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Nashville Predators
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Blainville-Boisbriand Armada | QMJHL | 3 | 2 | 0 | 98.6% | 0.45 | 1 | 0.9938 | 94.7% |
| 2024-25 | Cape Breton Eagles | QMJHL | 38 | 18 | 13 | 90.3% | 3.22 | 1 | 0.9938 | 89.8% |
| 2023-24 | Cape Breton Eagles | QMJHL | 33 | 18 | 11 | 90.5% | 2.82 | 3 | 0.9938 | 93.3% |
| 2022-23 | — | USHL-Style-Czech | 9 | 8 | 1 | 92.4% | 2.41 | 2 | 0.9600 | 94.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan Airey | BCHL | 92.5% | 90.4% | Minnesota | 86.5% | 3.23 |
| Deivs Rolovs | NAHL | 91.9% | 90.2% | Niagara | 88.3% | 3.49 |
| Oliver Auyeung-Ashton | BCHL | 90.9% | 89.0% | Northern Michigan | 93.0% | 2.67 |
| Logan Neaton | BCHL | 91.4% | 89.2% | UMass Lowell | 86.9% | 3.85 |
| William Håkansson | NAHL | 91.2% | 89.0% | Lake Superior State | 83.3% | 4.83 |
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 |
| Paul Dalessio | NCDC | 93.4% | 92.7% | Nazareth | D3 | 92.5% | 2.45 |
| Andrew Palena | NCDC | 91.4% | 90.9% | Amherst | D3 | 94.9% | 1.40 |
| Jack Robbel | NAHL | 92.3% | 92.2% | Augsburg | D3 | 92.4% | 1.38 |
| Thomas Walker | EHL | 92.5% | 91.5% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 85.7% | 5.54 |
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.