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 | 83.4% |
| 2023-24 | — | AJHL | 20 | 10 | 7 | 90.4% | 2.84 | 3 | 0.9700 | 85.0% |
| 2022-23 | — | BCHL | 29 | 4 | 18 | 89.6% | 3.90 | 0 | 0.9990 | 89.9% |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Hauser | WHL | 91.3% | 83.7% | Wisconsin | 90.0% | 2.49 |
| Jacob Zacharewicz | NAHL | 89.2% | 83.4% | Brown | 86.8% | 4.19 |
| Thomas Heaney | NAHL | 90.0% | 84.2% | UConn | 86.7% | 4.39 |
| Jack LaFontaine | BCHL | 92.3% | 85.8% | Minnesota | 91.9% | 2.55 |
| Reid Dyck | WHL | 89.0% | 81.5% | Colgate | 89.7% | 3.17 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Linville | NCDC | 88.9% | 83.7% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 88.3% | 3.95 |
| Marcus Cumberworth | AJHL | 88.7% | 83.2% | Buffalo State | D3 | 90.8% | 3.33 |
| Nic Tallarico | NOJHL | 92.1% | 83.6% | Adrian | D3 | 90.1% | 2.46 |
| Brian Tallieu | USPHL-Premier | 91.3% | 82.8% | Lawrence | D3 | 88.6% | 4.50 |
| Brock Moroz | MJHL | 89.4% | 84.7% | Concordia | D3 | 55.6% | 15.84 |
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.