IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Simon Latkoczy Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Goalie DOB: 2002-06-01 Country: Slovakia
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

Save % Equivalency
—
Goals Against Average
—
Base SV% —
Year Adj —
Source —
Confidence —

NCAA D3 / D2

Save % Equivalency
—
Goals Against Average
—
Base SV% —
Year Adj —
Source —
Confidence —
Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw SV%  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adj SVe%  ·  ■ Green = actual college SV%
Goalie Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP W L SV% GAA SO SVe Factor Age-Adj SV%
2021-22 — USHL 42 23 16 88.7% 3.31 2 0.9980 83.1%
2020-21 — USHL 16 12 2 89.8% 2.89 1 0.9980 89.6%
2019-20 — USHL 20 3 15 87.6% 4.59 0 0.9980 87.4%
SVe Factor = save% equivalency relative to NCAA D1 average  ·  COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div GP W L SV% GAA SO
2025-26 Nebraska Omaha D1 25 8 16 89.5% 3.31 0
2024-25 Nebraska Omaha D1 31 14 16 92.2% 2.71 1
2023-24 Nebraska Omaha D1 34 19 12 91.3% 2.69 2
2022-23 Nebraska Omaha D1 20 11 6 91.9% 2.32 2
Goalie Comparables (D1)

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
Cameron Korpi USHL 89.2% 83.3% Michigan 90.4% 3.08
Adam Gajan USHL 89.3% 83.0% Minnesota Duluth 88.5% 3.33
Samuel Urban USHL 89.9% 83.4% Arizona State 90.4% 3.53
Mitch Gibson USHL 89.0% 83.9% Harvard 91.6% 2.61
Noah Grannan USHL 89.1% 82.9% Penn State 88.5% 3.40
Goalie Comparables (D2/D3)

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
Andrew Doran NA3HL 93.4% 87.1% Utica D3 100.0% —
Brandon Shantz NA3HL 89.7% 82.6% Plymouth State D3 92.1% 3.00
Carson Ironside AJHL 87.8% 84.2% Albertus Magnus D3 89.3% 2.76
Tyler Fromolz NA3HL 92.0% 87.1% Marian D3 88.3% 3.85
Jarret Bovarnick EHL 88.3% 87.8% Suffolk D3 87.2% 4.52

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.