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 | 86.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | OJHL | 16 | 3 | 8 | 88.4% | 4.04 | 0 | 0.9700 | 84.8% |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Croix Kochendorfer | NAHL | 92.0% | 86.6% | Robert Morris | 90.6% | 2.95 |
| Callum Tung | BCHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | UConn | 93.3% | 2.01 |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 86.3% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
| Lassi Lehti | NAHL | 92.0% | 87.0% | Alaska Fairbanks | 83.3% | 5.56 |
| Klayton Knapp | NAHL | 92.1% | 86.5% | Minnesota Duluth | 90.7% | 2.67 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Albano | OJHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | Norwich | D3 | 82.4% | 3.00 |
| Blake Hazelton | USPHL-Premier | 93.8% | 85.6% | Concordia | D3 | 90.3% | 3.97 |
| Korbinian Lutz | EHL | 91.0% | 86.4% | Nichols | D3 | 88.8% | 4.09 |
| Brady Quackenbush | EHL | 88.2% | 85.2% | Salve Regina | D3 | 88.5% | 2.01 |
| Ryan Henry | NCDC | 91.6% | 87.9% | Nichols | D3 | 92.9% | 2.39 |
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.