icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | AJHL | 35 | 24 | 9 | 92.4% | 2.23 | 3 | 0.9700 | 77.8% |
| 2023-24 | — | AJHL | 20 | 10 | 7 | 90.4% | 2.84 | 3 | 0.9700 | 82.6% |
| 2022-23 | — | BCHL | 29 | 4 | 18 | 89.6% | 3.90 | 0 | 0.9990 | 90.3% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Long Island Univ. | D1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 89.7% | 2.57 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack LaFontaine | BCHL | 92.3% | 80.1% | Minnesota | 91.9% | 2.55 |
| Daniel Hauser | WHL | 91.3% | 76.6% | Wisconsin | 90.0% | 2.49 |
| Luke Lush | AJHL | 91.9% | 77.5% | Sacred Heart | 91.5% | 2.11 |
| Aaron Matthews | NCDC | 90.7% | 77.9% | Providence | — | — |
| Jacob Zacharewicz | NAHL | 89.2% | 79.5% | Brown | 86.8% | 4.19 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Cumberworth | AJHL | 88.7% | 77.7% | Buffalo State | D3 | 90.8% | 3.33 |
| Brian Tallieu | USPHL-Premier | 91.3% | 77.8% | Lawrence | D3 | 88.6% | 4.50 |
| Hunter Thomas | USPHL-Premier | 90.2% | 77.3% | Salem State | D3 | 87.3% | 5.20 |
| Nic Tallarico | NOJHL | 92.1% | 78.5% | Adrian | D3 | 90.1% | 2.46 |
| Grant Linville | NCDC | 88.9% | 79.2% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 88.3% | 3.95 |
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.