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 | 39 | 21 | 13 | 91.7% | 2.17 | 4 | 0.9843 | 89.1% |
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 30 | 18 | 6 | 91.7% | 2.07 | 3 | 0.9843 | 95.1% |
| 2022-23 | — | USHL | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | 0 | 0.9980 | 97.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Bemidji State | D1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 89.5% | 1.76 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Bemidji State | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| William Håkansson | NAHL | 91.2% | 88.3% | Lake Superior State | 83.3% | 4.83 |
| Joshua Kotai | SJHL | 93.5% | 88.0% | Augustana | 90.4% | 3.32 |
| Ryan Manzella | NAHL | 90.4% | 87.7% | Michigan Tech | 90.6% | 2.48 |
| Nathan Airey | BCHL | 92.5% | 88.7% | Minnesota | 86.5% | 3.23 |
| Logan Neaton | BCHL | 91.4% | 87.3% | UMass Lowell | 86.9% | 3.85 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Ozgun | NAHL | 90.2% | 89.4% | Skidmore | D3 | 92.5% | 2.30 |
| Mason Jones | NCDC | 91.1% | 89.1% | Misericordia | D3 | 91.2% | 3.24 |
| Chad Lowe | USPHL-Premier | 93.5% | 86.9% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 90.2% | 4.99 |
| Cal Wilcox | NCDC | 89.6% | 86.7% | Suffolk | D3 | 89.1% | 4.18 |
| Brody Haynes | NCDC | 92.5% | 92.3% | Elmira | D3 | 94.8% | 1.22 |
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.