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 | 42 | 32 | 5 | 92.7% | 1.97 | 6 | 0.9843 | 92.0% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 15 | 6 | 4 | 89.3% | 3.55 | 0 | 0.9990 | 92.1% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 12 | 10 | 1 | 91.9% | 1.99 | 4 | 0.9843 | 94.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Holy Cross | D1 | 22 | 12 | 9 | 90.6% | 2.62 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petter Wickström Stumer | NAHL | 91.4% | 90.8% | Canisius | 90.4% | 3.52 |
| Luca Di Pasquo | BCHL | 92.2% | 91.6% | Michigan | 91.0% | 2.41 |
| Johnny Hicks | BCHL | 94.3% | 93.8% | Denver | 95.5% | 1.25 |
| Grant Riley | BCHL | 90.7% | 89.8% | Northeastern | 82.4% | 3.06 |
| Roan Clarke | BCHL | 90.8% | 89.9% | Dartmouth | 86.0% | 3.93 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brody Haynes | NCDC | 92.5% | 92.3% | Elmira | D3 | 94.8% | 1.22 |
| Marko Belak | MJHL | 90.3% | 91.0% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 87.8% | 3.08 |
| Ryan Nolan | NAHL | 88.9% | 90.6% | St. Olaf | D3 | 93.5% | 2.31 |
| Primo Baldassarre | NCDC | 92.8% | 92.7% | Connecticut College | D3 | 87.1% | 4.43 |
| Nathan Pickett | EHL | 93.9% | 93.4% | Suffolk | D3 | 90.5% | 4.16 |
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.