icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 9 | 3 | 5 | 91.2% | 2.57 | 0 | 0.9843 | 85.1% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 20 | 12 | 5 | 90.2% | 2.35 | 2 | 0.9843 | 87.6% |
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 1 | 0 | 1 | 75.0% | 6.10 | 0 | 0.9843 | 75.5% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Hamilton | D3 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 0 |
| 2024-25 | American International | D1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — | — | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitchell Day | NAHL | 91.6% | 85.5% | Niagara | 88.3% | 4.06 |
| Cullen DeYoung | NAHL | 91.0% | 85.0% | Sacred Heart | 94.3% | 1.73 |
| Teagan Kendrick | BCHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Sacred Heart | 92.0% | 2.42 |
| Thomas Heaney | NAHL | 90.0% | 84.2% | UConn | 86.7% | 4.39 |
| Jack LaFontaine | BCHL | 92.3% | 85.8% | Minnesota | 91.9% | 2.55 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matt Hennessey | AJHL | 90.9% | 85.4% | Anna Maria | D3 | 93.2% | 2.59 |
| Nick Bernstein | NCDC | 90.6% | 85.4% | Chatham | D3 | 90.9% | 3.42 |
| Carson Barnes | NAHL | 88.6% | 85.0% | University of New England | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| William McEvoy | CCHL | 91.2% | 85.5% | Connecticut College | D3 | 90.2% | 3.12 |
| Liam Lane | EHL | 90.3% | 85.5% | Western Connecticut | D3 | 89.3% | 4.03 |
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.