icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Prince Albert Raiders | WHL | 55 | 33 | 16 | 91.8% | 2.87 | 3 | 1.0047 | 79.7% |
| 2023-24 | Prince Albert Raiders | WHL | 51 | 25 | 20 | 90.7% | 2.88 | 2 | 1.0047 | 85.6% |
| 2022-23 | — | WHL | 32 | 11 | 14 | 87.1% | 3.71 | 0 | 1.0047 | 88.2% |
| 2021-22 | — | SJHL | 9 | 5 | 4 | 88.9% | 3.24 | 0 | 0.9700 | 97.0% |
| 2021-22 | — | WHL | 5 | 0 | 3 | 88.2% | 3.54 | 0 | 1.0047 | 95.1% |
| 2020-21 | — | WHL | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.0047 | — |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Bemidji State | D1 | 24 | 8 | 14 | 89.5% | 2.71 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Bussi | USHL | 91.5% | 79.8% | Western Michigan | 91.0% | 2.65 |
| Ben Bonisteel | OJHL | 92.6% | 79.9% | Canisius | 89.3% | 3.10 |
| Jack Williams | USHL | 90.8% | 79.1% | Notre Dame | 88.9% | 2.90 |
| Jacob Steinman | QMJHL | 92.3% | 79.8% | Bowling Green | 92.1% | 2.14 |
| Quentin Sigurdson | USHL | 89.6% | 78.2% | Northeastern | 92.0% | 2.13 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan Loisel | CCHL | 88.3% | 79.6% | Southern New Hampshire | D2 | 92.5% | 2.61 |
| Dylan Boughen | USPHL-Premier | 90.6% | 79.8% | Rivier | D3 | 62.5% | 14.86 |
| Karl Zodda | NA3HL | 92.0% | 79.9% | Chatham | D3 | 86.8% | 4.66 |
| Liam Gross | USPHL-Premier | 90.2% | 80.0% | Buffalo State | D3 | 85.7% | 5.75 |
| Gabe Rosek | NOJHL | 91.3% | 79.3% | Concordia | D3 | 90.2% | 4.56 |
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.