icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | — | SJHL | 28 | 13 | 13 | 89.6% | 3.37 | 0 | 0.9700 | 82.6% |
| 2022-23 | — | SJHL | 44 | 22 | 16 | 91.3% | 2.93 | 5 | 0.9700 | 87.3% |
| 2021-22 | — | SJHL | 22 | 18 | 1 | 93.5% | 1.71 | 5 | 0.9700 | 92.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Concordia | D3 | 19 | — | — | 88.7% | 3.74 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Concordia | D3 | 13 | — | — | 89.0% | 3.97 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Manzella | USHL | 90.4% | 83.1% | Michigan Tech | 89.5% | 3.17 |
| Bruno Bruveris | USHL | 89.7% | 82.4% | Miami | 86.6% | 4.15 |
| Ryan Snowden | USHL | 89.8% | 82.7% | Ohio State | 90.5% | 2.52 |
| Gavin Moffatt | USHL | 89.3% | 82.4% | Western Michigan | — | — |
| Charles-Edward Gravel | QMJHL | 91.4% | 84.0% | Mercyhurst | 90.7% | 3.22 |
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 Hildebrand | AJHL | 87.4% | 82.5% | Babson | D3 | 87.8% | 3.82 |
| Colby Entz | SJHL | 89.8% | 82.9% | St. Norbert | D3 | 93.0% | 1.88 |
| Paul Knapik | USPHL-Premier | 90.5% | 82.3% | Roger Williams | D3 | — | — |
| Hayden Williamson | OJHL | 85.8% | 82.1% | Arcadia | D3 | 92.0% | 3.36 |
| Nolan Hildebrand | BCHL | 89.3% | 81.9% | Babson | D3 | 87.8% | 3.82 |
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.