icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | EHL | 16 | 4 | 12 | 90.3% | 3.58 | 2 | 0.9400 | 85.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Manhattanville | D3 | 20 | — | — | 91.2% | 3.43 | 2 |
| 2024-25 | Manhattanville | D3 | 16 | 6 | 8 | 93.0% | 2.56 | 1 |
| 2023-24 | Manhattanville | D3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 87.6% | 5.24 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noah Grannan | USHL | 89.1% | 85.8% | Penn State | 88.5% | 3.40 |
| Adam Gajan | USHL | 89.3% | 85.9% | Minnesota Duluth | 88.5% | 3.33 |
| Samuel Urban | USHL | 89.9% | 86.4% | Arizona State | 90.4% | 3.53 |
| Jaxson Stauber | USHL | 88.3% | 85.0% | Minnesota | 93.3% | 1.00 |
| Axel Mangbo | USHL | 89.0% | 85.4% | Vermont | 85.7% | 5.00 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Fellner | SJHL | 89.9% | 86.4% | Alvernia | D3 | 92.4% | 2.68 |
| Carson Ironside | AJHL | 87.8% | 86.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 89.3% | 2.76 |
| Andrew Doran | NA3HL | 93.4% | 87.0% | Utica | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Russ Decoste | USPHL-Premier | 93.1% | 88.5% | Westfield State | D3 | 93.3% | 2.38 |
| Clément Labillois | SJHL | 88.9% | 85.2% | Assumption | D2 | 93.6% | 2.08 |
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.