icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Montreal Canadiens
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-27 | Victoria Grizzlies | BCHL | 6 | 6 | 0 | 95.6% | 1.33 | 1 | 0.9990 | 95.5% |
| 2025-26 | Victoria Grizzlies | BCHL | 19 | 10 | 6 | 90.5% | 3.31 | 1 | 0.9990 | 88.8% |
| 2025-26 | Newfoundland Regiment | QMJHL | 6 | 2 | 2 | 85.0% | 3.86 | 0 | 0.9938 | 80.9% |
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 5 | 4 | 1 | 88.1% | 3.18 | 0 | 0.9990 | 88.8% |
| 2024-25 | Acadie-Bathurst Titan | QMJHL | 9 | 1 | 4 | 86.7% | 4.38 | 0 | 0.9938 | 85.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max Beckford | NAHL | 94.0% | 88.0% | Bentley | 90.2% | 1.84 |
| Isak Posch | NAHL | 92.6% | 86.5% | St. Cloud State | 90.1% | 2.93 |
| Mitchell Day | NAHL | 91.6% | 85.5% | Niagara | 88.3% | 4.06 |
| Jakub Krbecek | NAHL | 92.1% | 86.2% | RIT | 89.3% | 3.90 |
| Jack LaFontaine | BCHL | 92.3% | 85.8% | Minnesota | 91.9% | 2.55 |
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 |
| Joey Lovullo | NAHL | 91.2% | 87.6% | Hamilton | D3 | — | — |
| Artur Dzhilavyan | EHL | 92.3% | 87.4% | Keene State | D3 | 95.9% | 1.48 |
| Marcus Ouellet | NCDC | 92.8% | 88.1% | St. John Fisher | D3 | 87.9% | 1.86 |
| 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.