icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Trail Smoke Eaters | BCHL | 25 | 14 | 9 | 89.9% | 3.07 | 0 | 0.9990 | 84.9% |
| 2024-25 | Spokane Chiefs | WHL | 21 | 9 | 8 | 88.5% | 3.48 | 1 | 1.0047 | 84.4% |
| 2023-24 | Spokane Chiefs | WHL | 28 | 12 | 12 | 87.1% | 4.49 | 0 | 1.0047 | 86.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | WHL | 37 | 7 | 19 | 87.9% | 4.30 | 0 | 1.0047 | 90.5% |
| 2021-22 | — | WHL | 5 | 1 | 3 | 88.9% | 4.20 | 0 | 1.0047 | 94.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cullen DeYoung | NAHL | 91.0% | 85.0% | Sacred Heart | 94.3% | 1.73 |
| Mitchell Day | NAHL | 91.6% | 85.5% | Niagara | 88.3% | 4.06 |
| Thomas Heaney | NAHL | 90.0% | 84.2% | UConn | 86.7% | 4.39 |
| Daniel Hauser | WHL | 91.3% | 83.7% | Wisconsin | 90.0% | 2.49 |
| Teagan Kendrick | BCHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Sacred Heart | 92.0% | 2.42 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matt Hennessey | AJHL | 90.9% | 85.4% | Anna Maria | D3 | 93.2% | 2.59 |
| Carson Barnes | NAHL | 88.6% | 85.0% | University of New England | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Nick Bernstein | NCDC | 90.6% | 85.4% | Chatham | D3 | 90.9% | 3.42 |
| William McEvoy | CCHL | 91.2% | 85.5% | Connecticut College | D3 | 90.2% | 3.12 |
| Pierce Diamond | SJHL | 91.5% | 84.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 89.4% | 3.82 |
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.