IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Gustave Bylin Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Goalie DOB: 2002-01-12 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

Save % Equivalency
—
Goals Against Average
—
Base SV% —
Year Adj —
Source —
Confidence —

NCAA D3 / D2

Save % Equivalency
—
Goals Against Average
—
Base SV% —
Year Adj —
Source —
Confidence —
Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw SV%  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adj SVe%  ·  ■ Green = actual college SV%
Goalie Junior Seasons
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 82.3%
2020-21 — NAHL 5 0 4 87.7% 3.83 0 0.9843 86.3%
SVe Factor = save% equivalency relative to NCAA D1 average  ·  COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
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 —
Goalie Comparables (D1)

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
Jake Barczewski USHL 90.4% 82.3% Canisius 90.5% 2.92
Stephen Peck USHL 90.9% 82.5% Michigan 91.1% 2.61
Jackson Unger WHL 89.9% 81.5% Colorado College 91.1% 2.53
Joey Lamoreaux USHL 89.7% 82.0% St. Cloud State 89.3% 3.25
Troy Kobryn USHL 89.5% 82.1% Merrimack 89.3% 3.30
Goalie Comparables (D2/D3)

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% 81.7% Western Connecticut D3 85.8% 5.91
Owen Carlson NA3HL 92.1% 83.0% Lawrence D3 90.2% 3.41
Sean Guerin NOJHL 90.2% 81.9% Southern New Hampshire D2 90.7% 3.28
Caleb Chabot CCHL 89.1% 84.2% Albertus Magnus D3 93.4% 1.79
Tyler Laureault CCHL 90.6% 84.7% St. Olaf D3 88.7% 3.36

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.