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 0.9987 85.7%
2020-21 — USHL 16 12 2 89.8% 2.89 1 0.9987 89.7%
2019-20 — USHL 20 3 15 87.6% 4.59 0 0.9987 87.5%
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% 86.1% Michigan 90.4% 3.08
Jarrett Fiske CCHL 90.9% 86.6% American International — —
Adam Gajan USHL 89.3% 86.0% Minnesota Duluth 88.5% 3.33
Max Väyrynen SM-Liiga-Jr 91.2% 86.5% Michigan Tech 90.3% 2.32
Mitch Gibson USHL 89.0% 86.3% Harvard 91.6% 2.61
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% 87.0% Utica D3 100.0% —
Tyler Fromolz NA3HL 92.0% 86.3% Marian D3 88.3% 3.85
Jarret Bovarnick EHL 88.3% 87.5% Suffolk D3 87.2% 4.52
Cameron Kuntar NCDC 89.3% 89.1% Chatham D3 92.4% 2.62
Jackson Fellner SJHL 89.9% 86.4% Alvernia D3 92.4% 2.68

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.