| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | USHL | 41 | 30 | 6 | 91.8% | 2.08 | 6 | 0.9980 | 89.5% |
| 2020-21 | — | NAHL | 20 | 14 | 4 | 93.6% | 2.17 | 2 | 0.9843 | 92.1% |
| 2019-20 | — | NCDC | 4 | 1 | 2 | 92.6% | 3.46 | 0 | 0.9400 | 87.0% |
| 2019-20 | — | NAHL | 15 | 10 | 4 | 89.2% | 3.56 | 0 | 0.9843 | 87.8% |
| 2019-20 | — | USHL | 2 | 0 | 2 | 81.1% | 7.27 | 0 | 0.9980 | 80.9% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Penn State | D1 | 33 | 19 | 9 | 91.9% | 2.54 | 4 |
| 2023-24 | UConn | D1 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 91.3% | 2.70 | 1 |
| 2022-23 | UConn | D1 | 19 | 11 | 6 | 91.2% | 2.61 | 0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emmett Croteau | USHL | 91.7% | 89.0% | Clarkson | 83.5% | 3.53 |
| Alexis Cournoyer | QMJHL | 94.2% | 91.6% | Cornell | 91.5% | 2.05 |
| Blake Pietila | USHL | 91.2% | 89.7% | Michigan Tech | 86.8% | 3.24 |
| John Parsons | USHL | 90.3% | 88.2% | Providence | 92.2% | 2.05 |
| Carson Cherepak | MJHL | 92.1% | 89.2% | RPI | 89.6% | 3.11 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brody Haynes | NCDC | 92.5% | 92.3% | Elmira | D3 | 94.8% | 1.22 |
| Nevin Tardif | USPHL-Premier | 90.4% | 88.0% | Worcester State | D3 | 89.8% | 3.54 |
| Justin Damon | USPHL-Premier | 94.0% | 91.5% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 92.9% | 2.27 |
| Connor Carbo | EHL | 89.3% | 90.3% | Wentworth | D3 | 92.3% | 3.00 |
| Michael Paterson-Jones | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 88.7% | Wilkes | D3 | 89.5% | 3.08 |
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.