icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | NOJHL | 23 | 16 | 6 | 91.3% | 2.90 | 1 | 0.9700 | 78.5% |
| 2020-21 | — | NOJHL | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.9700 | — |
| 2019-20 | — | NOJHL | 2 | 2 | 0 | 91.7% | 3.00 | 0 | 0.9700 | 88.9% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Concordia | D3 | 20 | — | — | 91.8% | 3.17 | 0 |
| 2023-24 | Concordia | D3 | 25 | — | — | 88.9% | 4.43 | 0 |
| 2022-23 | Concordia | D3 | 21 | 4 | 12 | 90.2% | 4.56 | — |
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 Williams | USHL | 90.8% | 79.1% | Notre Dame | 88.9% | 2.90 |
| Chad Veltri | USHL | 90.2% | 78.3% | Niagara | 93.1% | 2.10 |
| Yan Shostak | USHL | 91.1% | 78.6% | St. Cloud State | 89.7% | 3.08 |
| Quentin Sigurdson | USHL | 89.6% | 78.2% | Northeastern | 92.0% | 2.13 |
| Brandon Bussi | USHL | 91.5% | 79.8% | Western Michigan | 91.0% | 2.65 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Will Pinney | NA3HL | 90.3% | 78.8% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 85.8% | 4.05 |
| Nathan Loisel | CCHL | 88.3% | 79.6% | Southern New Hampshire | D2 | 92.5% | 2.61 |
| Liam Gross | USPHL-Premier | 90.2% | 80.0% | Buffalo State | D3 | 85.7% | 5.75 |
| 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 |
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.