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 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 92.4% | 1.81 | 1 | 0.9843 | 87.2% |
| 2023-24 | Dubuque Fighting Saints | USHL | 20 | 10 | 7 | 87.7% | 3.24 | 1 | 0.9983 | 81.0% |
| 2022-23 | — | OJHL | 35 | 28 | 5 | 93.4% | 1.88 | 6 | 0.9700 | 88.2% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | UMass | D1 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salvatore Evola | NAHL | 91.7% | 86.4% | Bowling Green | 86.2% | 4.25 |
| Lukas Swedin | NAHL | 94.0% | 88.5% | Bentley | 91.7% | 2.13 |
| Matt Vernon | NAHL | 93.4% | 87.6% | Colorado College | 90.1% | 3.43 |
| Simon Bucheler | NAHL | 92.2% | 86.7% | Mercyhurst | 90.1% | 3.92 |
| Charles-Edward Gravel | BCHL | 93.0% | 87.5% | Mercyhurst | 90.7% | 3.22 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owen Currier | EHL | 91.3% | 87.4% | Worcester State | D3 | — | — |
| Noel Olsonawski | MJHL | 91.2% | 86.8% | Concordia | D3 | 92.8% | 2.05 |
| Evan Crawford | USPHL-Premier | 95.0% | 86.7% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | — | — |
| Colten Lancaster | NCDC | 92.7% | 87.9% | Western New England | D3 | 85.2% | 5.41 |
| Hunter Garvey | NAHL | 89.7% | 86.8% | St. Norbert | D3 | 92.2% | 1.90 |
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.