icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Sioux City Musketeers | USHL | 40 | 22 | 15 | 89.9% | 2.96 | 2 | 0.9980 | 83.4% |
| 2023-24 | Sioux City Musketeers | USHL | 34 | 16 | 16 | 89.3% | 3.17 | 1 | 0.9980 | 89.2% |
| 2022-23 | — | USHL | 4 | 2 | 0 | 91.8% | 2.80 | 0 | 0.9980 | 97.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Arizona State | D1 | 16 | 4 | 10 | 90.4% | 3.53 | 1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam Gajan | USHL | 89.3% | 83.0% | Minnesota Duluth | 88.5% | 3.33 |
| Noah Grannan | USHL | 89.1% | 82.9% | Penn State | 88.5% | 3.40 |
| Chase Clark | USHL | 89.9% | 83.3% | Quinnipiac | 84.0% | 3.06 |
| Jaxson Stauber | USHL | 88.3% | 82.2% | Minnesota | 93.3% | 1.00 |
| Marcus Brännman | USHL | 90.3% | 83.4% | Providence | 75.0% | 4.01 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Shantz | NA3HL | 89.7% | 82.6% | Plymouth State | D3 | 92.1% | 3.00 |
| Carson Ironside | AJHL | 87.8% | 84.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 89.3% | 2.76 |
| Russ Decoste | USPHL-Premier | 93.1% | 87.0% | Westfield State | D3 | 93.3% | 2.38 |
| Clément Labillois | SJHL | 88.9% | 84.4% | Assumption | D2 | 93.6% | 2.08 |
| Jackson Fellner | SJHL | 89.9% | 85.7% | Alvernia | D3 | 92.4% | 2.68 |
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.