icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
Montreal Canadiens
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 10 | 8 | 2 | 92.3% | 2.29 | 1 | 0.9990 | 86.9% |
| 2023-24 | Rimouski Océanic | QMJHL | 42 | 22 | 17 | 90.7% | 2.88 | 1 | 0.9938 | 88.3% |
| 2022-23 | — | QMJHL | 20 | 14 | 4 | 91.1% | 2.11 | 2 | 0.9938 | 94.9% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Denver | D1 | 25 | 12 | 10 | 91.6% | 2.39 | 3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max Lacroix | NAHL | 91.4% | 87.0% | Boston University | 87.2% | 3.59 |
| Lassi Lehti | NAHL | 92.0% | 87.0% | Alaska Fairbanks | 83.3% | 5.56 |
| John Roberts | NAHL | 92.5% | 87.2% | Northern Michigan | 100.0% | — |
| Ethan David | BCHL | 90.9% | 85.5% | RIT | 90.9% | 2.68 |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 86.3% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Beaulieu | EHL | 89.2% | 87.5% | New England College | D3 | 93.0% | 2.37 |
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 85.3% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Riley Mastowski | EHL | 89.9% | 87.4% | Franklin Pierce | D2 | 89.4% | 3.80 |
| Tyler Laureault | CCHL | 90.6% | 84.7% | St. Olaf | D3 | 88.7% | 3.36 |
| Gustave Bylin | AJHL | 90.4% | 85.5% | Tufts | D3 | 89.8% | 3.01 |
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.