icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-20 | — | EHL | 15 | 8 | 5 | 90.7% | 2.60 | 3 | 0.9400 | 85.3% |
| 2018-19 | — | EHL | 21 | 5 | 12 | 88.3% | 3.58 | 2 | 0.9400 | 83.4% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | Suffolk | D3 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 88.3% | 3.98 | — |
| 2021-22 | Suffolk | D3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 87.2% | 3.75 | — |
| 2020-21 | Suffolk | D3 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019-20 | Suffolk | D3 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 87.2% | 4.52 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitch Gibson | USHL | 89.0% | 86.2% | Harvard | 91.6% | 2.61 |
| Max Väyrynen | SM-Liiga-Jr | 91.2% | 86.5% | Michigan Tech | 90.3% | 2.32 |
| Simon Latkoczy | USHL | 88.7% | 85.7% | Nebraska Omaha | 91.9% | 2.32 |
| Jack Stark | USHL | 90.0% | 87.0% | Yale | 91.9% | 2.22 |
| Brayden Gillespie | OHL | 88.1% | 85.5% | Union | 91.5% | 2.19 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Fromolz | NA3HL | 92.0% | 86.3% | Marian | D3 | 88.3% | 3.85 |
| Andrew Doran | NA3HL | 93.4% | 87.0% | Utica | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Brandon Shantz | NA3HL | 89.7% | 82.9% | Plymouth State | D3 | 92.1% | 3.00 |
| Cameron Kuntar | NCDC | 89.3% | 89.1% | Chatham | D3 | 92.4% | 2.62 |
| Jackson Fellner | SJHL | 89.9% | 86.4% | 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.