icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Muskegon Lumberjacks | USHL | 31 | 19 | 6 | 90.9% | 2.43 | 1 | 0.9980 | 82.5% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 32 | 22 | 7 | 91.7% | 2.25 | 5 | 0.9843 | 94.3% |
| 2023-24 | Muskegon Lumberjacks | USHL | 1 | 1 | 0 | 88.9% | 2.87 | 0 | 0.9980 | 87.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Michigan | D1 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 91.1% | 2.61 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Barczewski | USHL | 90.4% | 82.3% | Canisius | 90.5% | 2.92 |
| Joey Lamoreaux | USHL | 89.7% | 82.0% | St. Cloud State | 89.3% | 3.25 |
| Jackson Unger | WHL | 89.9% | 81.5% | Colorado College | 91.1% | 2.53 |
| Troy Kobryn | USHL | 89.5% | 82.1% | Merrimack | 89.3% | 3.30 |
| Sam Hillebrandt | OHL | 90.3% | 82.7% | Ohio State | 87.0% | 3.76 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan Dewatcher | OJHL | 86.3% | 81.7% | Western Connecticut | D3 | 85.8% | 5.91 |
| Owen Carlson | NA3HL | 92.1% | 83.0% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.2% | 3.41 |
| Caleb Chabot | CCHL | 89.1% | 84.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 93.4% | 1.79 |
| Gustave Bylin | AJHL | 90.4% | 85.5% | Tufts | D3 | 89.8% | 3.01 |
| Sean Guerin | NOJHL | 90.2% | 81.9% | Southern New Hampshire | D2 | 90.7% | 3.28 |
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.