icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Moncton Wildcats | QMJHL | 52 | 29 | 16 | 92.3% | 2.41 | 3 | 0.9938 | 85.4% |
| 2023-24 | Moncton Wildcats | QMJHL | 49 | 25 | 17 | 90.0% | 3.25 | 2 | 0.9938 | 86.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | QMJHL | 46 | 21 | 16 | 89.9% | 3.09 | 3 | 0.9938 | 89.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Bowling Green | D1 | 15 | 8 | 3 | 92.1% | 2.14 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Elliott | OHL | 92.4% | 85.7% | UMass Lowell | 88.5% | 3.01 |
| Justen Close | SJHL | 92.8% | 86.0% | Minnesota | 78.6% | 6.09 |
| Noah Pak | OJHL | 94.5% | 86.1% | Yale | 87.2% | 3.86 |
| Yan Shostak | USHL | 91.1% | 84.5% | St. Cloud State | 89.7% | 3.08 |
| Joshua Seeley | NAHL | 90.0% | 84.9% | Bentley | 82.6% | 8.58 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Hanson | EHL | 89.0% | 85.7% | Saint Anselm | D2 | 100.0% | — |
| Jadon Lee | USPHL-Premier | 93.3% | 86.0% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 93.0% | 2.59 |
| Michael Cammasso | USPHL-Premier | 92.4% | 85.1% | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 82.2% | 8.99 |
| Matthew Malin | AJHL | 90.7% | 86.5% | St. Olaf | D3 | 90.6% | 2.47 |
| Cam Prodin | USPHL-Premier | 93.6% | 86.0% | Roger Williams | D3 | 75.8% | 9.18 |
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.