icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-19 | — | NCDC | 29 | 17 | 10 | 92.7% | 2.64 | 0 | 0.9400 | 82.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | Western New England | D3 | 23 | 6 | 15 | 90.2% | 3.79 | — |
| 2021-22 | Western New England | D3 | 19 | 3 | 13 | 89.8% | 4.26 | — |
| 2019-20 | Western New England | D3 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 85.2% | 5.41 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Keyes | NCDC | 92.6% | 83.2% | Merrimack | 92.0% | 2.22 |
| Gavin Moffatt | USHL | 89.3% | 82.4% | Western Michigan | — | — |
| Alexander Tracy | USHL | 89.6% | 83.0% | Minnesota | 87.9% | 2.24 |
| Ryan Manzella | USHL | 90.4% | 83.1% | Michigan Tech | 89.5% | 3.17 |
| Lucas Massie | USHL | 87.9% | 81.1% | Union | 80.5% | 5.73 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Hildebrand | AJHL | 87.4% | 82.5% | Babson | D3 | 87.8% | 3.82 |
| Dean Hahn | USPHL-Premier | 91.6% | 84.1% | Salem State | D3 | 88.9% | 3.95 |
| Nolan Hildebrand | BCHL | 89.3% | 81.9% | Babson | D3 | 87.8% | 3.82 |
| Cameron Hrdlicka | SJHL | 89.6% | 83.0% | Concordia | D3 | 89.0% | 3.97 |
| Dolan Gilbert | NA3HL | 91.0% | 81.2% | Concordia | D3 | 81.0% | 9.00 |
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.