icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | — | NCDC | 7 | 5 | 2 | 91.6% | 3.30 | 0 | 0.9400 | 84.3% |
| 2021-22 | — | NAHL | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.9843 | — |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 19 | — | — | 90.9% | 3.60 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 20 | 7 | 11 | 92.3% | 3.06 | 1 |
| 2023-24 | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 89.6% | 4.19 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Troy Kobryn | NCDC | 92.2% | 83.6% | Merrimack | 89.3% | 3.30 |
| Joey Lamoreaux | USHL | 89.7% | 82.0% | St. Cloud State | 89.3% | 3.25 |
| Francis Boisvert | CCHL | 92.0% | 84.8% | St. Lawrence | 89.7% | 3.50 |
| Sam Scopa | NAHL | 89.7% | 85.6% | Quinnipiac | 100.0% | — |
| Stephen Peck | USHL | 90.9% | 82.5% | Michigan | 91.1% | 2.61 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Mahaffey | NCDC | 87.4% | 85.4% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.5% | 3.39 |
| Maxim Zinchenko | USPHL-Premier | 91.8% | 85.4% | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 90.8% | 3.68 |
| Clément Labillois | SJHL | 88.9% | 84.4% | Assumption | D2 | 93.6% | 2.08 |
| Gustave Bylin | AJHL | 90.4% | 85.5% | Tufts | D3 | 89.8% | 3.01 |
| Nick Anderson | USPHL-Premier | 92.6% | 86.1% | Nichols | D3 | 87.4% | 4.17 |
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.