icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | USPHL-Premier | 28 | 14 | 8 | 92.2% | 2.20 | 1 | 0.9400 | 81.0% |
| 2020-21 | — | USPHL-Premier | 25 | 19 | 4 | 92.8% | 1.96 | 1 | 0.9400 | 87.2% |
| 2019-20 | — | USHL | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.9980 | — |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Lawrence | D3 | 1 | — | — | 83.7% | 7.00 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Lawrence | D3 | 6 | — | — | 84.7% | 5.90 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liam Beerman | USHL | 91.2% | 80.8% | Lindenwood | 90.3% | 3.24 |
| Kyle Chauvette | USHL | 89.2% | 79.5% | Union | 90.5% | 2.87 |
| Beckham Dempsey | NCDC | 90.4% | 80.7% | Colorado College | — | — |
| Connor Murphy | CCHL | 91.7% | 81.3% | Northeastern | 68.8% | 7.04 |
| Mathis Rousseau | QMJHL | 90.5% | 80.1% | Maine | 89.6% | 2.59 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kannon Flageolle | NOJHL | 91.3% | 81.7% | Suffolk | D3 | 89.7% | 3.99 |
| Tyler Sayger | USPHL-Premier | 90.8% | 81.4% | King's | D3 | 90.5% | 4.40 |
| Tyler Roy | USPHL-Premier | 91.1% | 81.8% | Neumann | D3 | 87.2% | 3.68 |
| Jeb Lindy | USPHL-Premier | 89.3% | 81.3% | Arcadia | D3 | 89.6% | 4.06 |
| Eric Daniel | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 82.8% | King's | D3 | 86.9% | 6.55 |
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.