icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 38 | 22 | 15 | 90.9% | 2.98 | 4 | 0.9990 | 85.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | BCHL | 26 | 13 | 9 | 91.2% | 2.72 | 3 | 0.9990 | 91.6% |
| 2021-22 | — | BCHL | 19 | 9 | 5 | 91.3% | 2.61 | 3 | 0.9990 | 97.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | RIT | D1 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 90.9% | 2.68 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Scopa | NAHL | 89.7% | 85.6% | Quinnipiac | 100.0% | — |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 86.3% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
| Callum Tung | BCHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | UConn | 93.3% | 2.01 |
| Quentin Miller | BCHL | 92.3% | 86.9% | Denver | 91.6% | 2.39 |
| Max Lacroix | NAHL | 91.4% | 87.0% | Boston University | 87.2% | 3.59 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 85.3% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Tyler Laureault | CCHL | 90.6% | 84.7% | St. Olaf | D3 | 88.7% | 3.36 |
| Gustave Bylin | AJHL | 90.4% | 85.5% | Tufts | D3 | 89.8% | 3.01 |
| Caleb Chabot | CCHL | 89.1% | 84.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 93.4% | 1.79 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 85.0% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
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.