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

Ben Cunneen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Goalie DOB: 2001-07-31 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 — USPHL-Premier 16 9 4 92.9% 2.33 2 0.9400 83.7%
2020-21 — USPHL-Premier 18 6 8 88.4% 4.72 0 0.9400 83.1%
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 Post D2 25 — — 93.1% 2.27 5
2024-25 Post D2 18 10 8 93.8% 2.27 0
2023-24 Post D2 6 1 3 86.4% 5.23 —
2022-23 Post D2 8 2 5 89.2% 4.30 —
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
Charlie Schenkel OHL 89.7% 84.0% Robert Morris 90.9% 2.80
Quentin Sigurdson USHL 89.6% 83.5% Northeastern 92.0% 2.13
Alec Calvaruso USHL 89.0% 83.1% RPI 86.9% 3.91
Patriks Berzins USHL 90.1% 84.4% Maine 90.0% 1.79
Colin Winn BCHL 90.2% 86.1% St. Lawrence 88.3% 4.50
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
Dane Couture MJHL 86.5% 83.8% Concordia D3 87.3% 2.94
Emil Norrman USPHL-Premier 91.3% 84.6% Buffalo State D3 93.1% 2.30
Dylan Boughen USPHL-Premier 90.6% 83.5% Rivier D3 62.5% 14.86
John Simon NA3HL 92.1% 83.2% Post D2 91.6% 3.15
Nathan Loisel CCHL 88.3% 83.8% Southern New Hampshire D2 92.5% 2.61

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.