icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | Chicago Steel | USHL | 31 | 13 | 14 | 88.0% | 4.35 | 1 | 0.9983 | 83.7% |
| 2022-23 | — | USHL | 33 | 21 | 9 | 90.2% | 3.35 | 1 | 0.9983 | 89.1% |
| 2021-22 | — | USHL | 19 | 12 | 4 | 90.7% | 2.83 | 0 | 0.9983 | 93.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Augustana | D1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 93.8% | 2.00 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Augustana | D1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 89.4% | 2.84 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Unger | WHL | 89.9% | 85.7% | Colorado College | 91.1% | 2.53 |
| Dylan Silverstein | USHL | 88.8% | 84.6% | Quinnipiac | 90.3% | 2.25 |
| Collin MacKenzie | OHL | 88.4% | 83.7% | RIT | 81.5% | 3.90 |
| Jake Barczewski | USHL | 90.4% | 86.0% | Canisius | 90.5% | 2.92 |
| Kristoffer Eberly | USHL | 89.3% | 84.6% | Ohio State | 91.1% | 2.98 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan Dewatcher | OJHL | 86.3% | 85.2% | Western Connecticut | D3 | 85.8% | 5.91 |
| Owen Carlson | NA3HL | 92.1% | 84.2% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.2% | 3.41 |
| Nolan Mahaffey | NCDC | 87.4% | 86.2% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.5% | 3.39 |
| Sean Guerin | NOJHL | 90.2% | 84.5% | Southern New Hampshire | D2 | 90.7% | 3.28 |
| Jeb Lindy | USPHL-Premier | 89.3% | 83.7% | Arcadia | D3 | 89.6% | 4.06 |
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.