icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | — | EHL | 14 | 11 | 2 | 93.7% | 1.92 | 2 | 0.9400 | 87.2% |
| 2022-23 | — | OJHL | 16 | 3 | 8 | 88.4% | 4.04 | 0 | 0.9700 | 85.3% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Concordia | D3 | 9 | — | — | 84.3% | 4.22 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Concordia | D3 | 3 | — | — | 88.9% | 3.91 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Perrone | NAHL | 91.2% | 87.4% | Alaska Anchorage | 87.2% | 3.66 |
| Merek Pipes | MJHL | 92.4% | 86.4% | Union | 66.7% | 15.52 |
| Matthew DellaRusso | NAHL | 89.6% | 86.1% | Northeastern | 66.7% | 21.30 |
| Josh Fleming | QMJHL | 90.8% | 85.6% | Penn State | 92.4% | 2.61 |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 87.7% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunter Virostek | AJHL | 90.1% | 86.9% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 75.0% | 6.00 |
| Blake Hazelton | USPHL-Premier | 93.8% | 88.0% | Concordia | D3 | 90.3% | 3.97 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 87.3% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
| Topher Chirico | SJHL | 90.8% | 86.2% | Wentworth | D3 | 91.6% | 3.05 |
| Brady Quackenbush | EHL | 88.2% | 86.1% | Salve Regina | D3 | 88.5% | 2.01 |
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.