icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 7 | 3 | 2 | 88.3% | 3.48 | 0 | 0.9843 | 83.9% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 18 | 10 | 2 | 90.9% | 2.95 | 0 | 0.9843 | 93.0% |
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 1 | 1 | 0 | 88.9% | 4.00 | 0 | 0.9843 | 96.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | St. Norbert | D3 | 4 | — | — | 92.4% | 2.00 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | St. Norbert | D3 | 7 | — | — | 93.2% | 1.73 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethan David | BCHL | 90.9% | 85.5% | RIT | 90.9% | 2.68 |
| Julian Molinaro | AJHL | 91.6% | 83.1% | Northern Michigan | 95.7% | 1.81 |
| Merek Pipes | MJHL | 92.4% | 83.6% | Union | 66.7% | 15.52 |
| Jake Barczewski | USHL | 90.4% | 82.3% | Canisius | 90.5% | 2.92 |
| Sam Scopa | NAHL | 89.7% | 85.6% | Quinnipiac | 100.0% | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 85.3% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Owen Carlson | NA3HL | 92.1% | 83.0% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.2% | 3.41 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 85.0% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
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.