icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | AJHL | 41 | 17 | 20 | 90.4% | 3.09 | 2 | 0.9700 | 84.8% |
| 2020-21 | — | NAHL | 5 | 0 | 4 | 87.7% | 3.83 | 0 | 0.9843 | 86.3% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Tufts | D3 | 23 | — | — | 91.6% | 2.65 | 1 |
| 2024-25 | Tufts | D3 | 23 | 11 | 8 | 92.5% | 2.31 | 2 |
| 2023-24 | Tufts | D3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 91.4% | 2.47 | 1 |
| 2022-23 | Tufts | D3 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 89.8% | 3.01 | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Unger | WHL | 89.9% | 85.7% | Colorado College | 91.1% | 2.53 |
| Christian Manz | USHL | 88.0% | 83.7% | Augustana | 89.4% | 2.84 |
| Jake Barczewski | USHL | 90.4% | 86.0% | Canisius | 90.5% | 2.92 |
| Dylan Silverstein | USHL | 88.8% | 84.6% | Quinnipiac | 90.3% | 2.25 |
| Joey Lamoreaux | USHL | 89.7% | 85.6% | St. Cloud State | 89.3% | 3.25 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dylan Dewatcher | OJHL | 86.3% | 85.2% | Western Connecticut | D3 | 85.8% | 5.91 |
| Nolan Mahaffey | NCDC | 87.4% | 86.2% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.5% | 3.39 |
| Owen Carlson | NA3HL | 92.1% | 84.2% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.2% | 3.41 |
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 86.1% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Sean Guerin | NOJHL | 90.2% | 84.5% | Southern New Hampshire | D2 | 90.7% | 3.28 |
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.