icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Montreal Canadiens
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hobie Hedquist | BCHL | 91.4% | 88.7% | North Dakota | 90.5% | 2.51 |
| Quentin Miller | BCHL | 92.3% | 89.4% | Denver | 91.6% | 2.39 |
| Jason Grande | NAHL | 92.5% | 89.6% | Bentley | 89.0% | 2.63 |
| Max Lacroix | NAHL | 91.4% | 88.4% | Boston University | 87.2% | 3.59 |
| Sam Scopa | NAHL | 89.7% | 86.9% | Quinnipiac | 100.0% | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gustave Bylin | AJHL | 90.4% | 88.1% | Tufts | D3 | 89.8% | 3.01 |
| Anthony Beaulieu | EHL | 89.2% | 87.7% | New England College | D3 | 93.0% | 2.37 |
| Jacob Stern | NCDC | 91.9% | 90.5% | Alvernia | D3 | 88.8% | 3.50 |
| Nick Anderson | USPHL-Premier | 92.6% | 87.8% | Nichols | D3 | 87.4% | 4.17 |
| Maxim Zinchenko | USPHL-Premier | 91.8% | 87.0% | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 90.8% | 3.68 |
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.