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 | 41 | 24 | 6 | 90.2% | 2.63 | 3 | 0.9990 | 83.3% |
| 2022-23 | — | CCHL | 31 | 24 | 2 | 93.4% | 2.07 | 3 | 0.9700 | 89.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Lake Superior State | D1 | 31 | 10 | 18 | 91.4% | 2.92 | 1 |
| 2024-25 | Lake Superior State | D1 | 31 | 10 | 19 | 90.7% | 3.00 | 2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben Charette | AJHL | 92.5% | 82.7% | Harvard | 90.9% | 2.77 |
| John Hawthorne | BCHL | 91.8% | 83.9% | Northern Michigan | 88.2% | 3.10 |
| Malachi Klassen | MJHL | 91.7% | 82.2% | Holy Cross | — | 3.04 |
| Carson Dorfman | NAHL | 90.1% | 84.7% | RPI | 100.0% | — |
| Nick Bevilacqua | NCDC | 94.8% | 83.4% | Bentley | 95.2% | 0.99 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Sayger | NCDC | 89.4% | 83.4% | King's | D3 | 90.5% | 4.40 |
| Dario Cantini | OJHL | 89.8% | 83.3% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 86.1% | 5.00 |
| Jeff Zero | NA3HL | 95.0% | 83.7% | Elmira | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Eric Daniel | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 82.8% | King's | D3 | 86.9% | 6.55 |
| Duncan Rolleman | USPHL-Premier | 92.5% | 83.2% | Wilkes | D3 | 90.0% | 3.84 |
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.