icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | NAHL | 42 | 29 | 8 | 91.8% | 2.45 | 3 | 0.9843 | 82.0% |
| 2020-21 | — | NAHL | 25 | 14 | 8 | 90.3% | 2.82 | 2 | 0.9843 | 88.9% |
| 2019-20 | — | NAHL | 35 | 11 | 18 | 90.2% | 3.19 | 0 | 0.9843 | 88.8% |
| 2018-19 | — | NAHL | 2 | 1 | 1 | 87.5% | 4.32 | 0 | 0.9843 | 96.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Colgate | D1 | 11 | 3 | 5 | 90.0% | 3.08 | 1 |
| 2024-25 | Colgate | D1 | 32 | 17 | 12 | 90.3% | 2.77 | 2 |
| 2023-24 | Colgate | D1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 90.5% | 2.38 | 0 |
| 2022-23 | Colgate | D1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 81.8% | 4.32 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kayden Hargraves | NAHL | 91.5% | 81.8% | Augustana | 92.0% | 2.72 |
| Eli Pulver | BCHL | 92.4% | 81.7% | Minnesota | 95.8% | 1.00 |
| Ethan Robertson | NAHL | 91.5% | 81.8% | Canisius | 90.4% | 3.25 |
| J.J. Cataldo | NAHL | 91.8% | 82.3% | Army | 92.2% | 2.41 |
| Carter Clafton | NAHL | 91.9% | 82.5% | Air Force | 100.0% | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford DeLoss | NCDC | 90.0% | 82.1% | Stevenson | D3 | 88.9% | 3.00 |
| Jeffrey Fillion | NCDC | 89.6% | 81.6% | Wilkes | D3 | 92.4% | 1.96 |
| Ryan Crowshaw | NAHL | 89.9% | 82.7% | Arcadia | D3 | 94.6% | 1.75 |
| Kael DePape | NAHL | 89.1% | 82.0% | Williams | D3 | 88.2% | 3.14 |
| Sebastian Woods | NCDC | 90.6% | 81.9% | Manhattanville | D3 | 91.4% | 3.07 |
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.