icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 45 | 20 | 18 | 90.8% | 2.94 | 1 | 0.9843 | 86.3% |
| 2021-22 | — | NAHL | 24 | 14 | 8 | 89.1% | 3.07 | 1 | 0.9843 | 96.6% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Alaska Anchorage | D1 | 26 | 5 | 19 | 90.1% | 3.48 | 1 |
| 2024-25 | Alaska Anchorage | D1 | 18 | 1 | 11 | 89.2% | 3.12 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lassi Lehti | NAHL | 92.0% | 87.0% | Alaska Fairbanks | 83.3% | 5.56 |
| John Roberts | NAHL | 92.5% | 87.2% | Northern Michigan | 100.0% | — |
| Callum Tung | BCHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | UConn | 93.3% | 2.01 |
| Max Lacroix | NAHL | 91.4% | 87.0% | Boston University | 87.2% | 3.59 |
| Ethan David | BCHL | 90.9% | 85.5% | RIT | 90.9% | 2.68 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riley Mastowski | EHL | 89.9% | 87.4% | Franklin Pierce | D2 | 89.4% | 3.80 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 85.0% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 85.3% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Andrew Albano | OJHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | Norwich | D3 | 82.4% | 3.00 |
| Blake Hazelton | USPHL-Premier | 93.8% | 85.6% | Concordia | D3 | 90.3% | 3.97 |
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.