icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Fairbanks Ice Dogs | NAHL | 34 | 20 | 10 | 92.2% | 2.19 | 2 | 0.9843 | 86.2% |
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 20 | 9 | 8 | 88.9% | 3.59 | 2 | 0.9990 | 86.5% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 18 | 5 | 10 | 92.1% | 3.04 | 0 | 0.9843 | 93.0% |
| 2023-24 | Muskegon Lumberjacks | USHL | 8 | 4 | 2 | 87.6% | 4.02 | 0 | 0.9983 | 86.7% |
| 2022-23 | — | USHL | 4 | 1 | 3 | 88.4% | 4.13 | 0 | 0.9983 | 90.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakub Krbecek | NAHL | 92.1% | 86.2% | RIT | 89.3% | 3.90 |
| Isak Posch | NAHL | 92.6% | 86.5% | St. Cloud State | 90.1% | 2.93 |
| Teagan Kendrick | BCHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Sacred Heart | 92.0% | 2.42 |
| J.J. Cataldo | NAHL | 91.8% | 86.1% | Army | 92.2% | 2.41 |
| Cullen DeYoung | NAHL | 91.0% | 85.0% | Sacred Heart | 94.3% | 1.73 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Howard | USPHL-Premier | 94.7% | 86.0% | Saint Anselm | D2 | 90.6% | 2.70 |
| Luca Scaglione | NCDC | 91.8% | 86.8% | Western New England | D3 | 89.2% | 4.81 |
| Jed Baliotti | NCDC | 91.2% | 86.7% | Colby | D3 | 92.3% | 1.98 |
| Chase Hale | NCDC | 91.4% | 86.5% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 92.2% | 2.54 |
| Sami Molu | CCHL | 92.5% | 86.9% | Norwich | D3 | 94.3% | 1.62 |
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.