icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 46 | 25 | 19 | 91.9% | 2.88 | 1 | 0.9843 | 85.4% |
| 2021-22 | — | NAHL | 18 | 8 | 7 | 90.6% | 2.76 | 2 | 0.9843 | 90.3% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Alaska Anchorage | D1 | 19 | 4 | 12 | 88.8% | 3.59 | 0 |
| 2023-24 | Alaska Anchorage | D1 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 91.5% | 2.75 | 1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beni Halasz | NAHL | 92.1% | 85.2% | Northern Michigan | 91.9% | 2.32 |
| Jackson Fuller | NAHL | 92.9% | 86.2% | Northern Michigan | — | — |
| John Hawthorne | BCHL | 91.8% | 83.9% | Northern Michigan | 88.2% | 3.10 |
| Brandon Milberg | NAHL | 92.4% | 85.0% | Sacred Heart | 86.3% | 3.89 |
| Quentin Sigurdson | NAHL | 92.3% | 85.2% | Northeastern | 92.0% | 2.13 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Suggs | NAHL | 90.1% | 86.2% | Adrian | D3 | 92.4% | 1.75 |
| Matthew O'Donnell | NAHL | 88.6% | 84.8% | Aurora | D3 | 91.0% | 2.97 |
| Jacob Jaslow | NCDC | 90.7% | 86.1% | Roger Williams | D3 | 91.0% | 3.49 |
| Tyler Roy | EHL | 91.3% | 86.0% | Neumann | D3 | 87.2% | 3.68 |
| Liam Kilgallen | EHL | 90.8% | 87.0% | Framingham State | D3 | 86.4% | 4.74 |
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.