icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 35 | 23 | 8 | 91.5% | 2.69 | 1 | 0.9990 | 85.7% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 29 | 12 | 12 | 90.2% | 3.30 | 1 | 0.9990 | 87.8% |
| 2022-23 | — | BCHL | 32 | 14 | 14 | 90.7% | 3.32 | 0 | 0.9990 | 91.3% |
| 2021-22 | — | AJHL | 2 | 2 | 0 | 95.5% | 1.44 | 0 | 0.9700 | 96.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Sacred Heart | D1 | 20 | 10 | 7 | 92.0% | 2.42 | 2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cullen DeYoung | NAHL | 91.0% | 85.0% | Sacred Heart | 94.3% | 1.73 |
| Ethan Robertson | NAHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Canisius | 90.4% | 3.25 |
| Jakub Krbecek | NAHL | 92.1% | 86.2% | RIT | 89.3% | 3.90 |
| Kayden Hargraves | NAHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Augustana | 92.0% | 2.72 |
| J.J. Cataldo | NAHL | 91.8% | 86.1% | Army | 92.2% | 2.41 |
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 Kozma | NAHL | 89.0% | 85.6% | Trine | D3 | 91.5% | 2.17 |
| Tripp Clarke | USPHL-Premier | 93.7% | 85.3% | Manhattanville | D3 | 75.0% | 4.09 |
| Kael DePape | NAHL | 89.1% | 85.9% | Williams | D3 | 88.2% | 3.14 |
| Nick Howard | USPHL-Premier | 94.7% | 86.0% | Saint Anselm | D2 | 90.6% | 2.70 |
| Ben Dardis | AJHL | 90.3% | 85.0% | Buffalo State | D3 | 89.9% | 2.82 |
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.