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 | 25 | 13 | 9 | 94.3% | 2.32 | 5 | 0.9400 | 87.7% |
| 2022-23 | — | NCDC | 2 | 0 | 1 | 81.8% | 5.83 | 0 | 0.9400 | 78.1% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Stevenson | D3 | 4 | — | — | 89.1% | 2.51 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | Stevenson | D3 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 88.3% | 3.70 | 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 |
| Croix Kochendorfer | NAHL | 92.0% | 88.4% | Robert Morris | 90.6% | 2.95 |
| Klayton Knapp | NAHL | 92.1% | 88.5% | Minnesota Duluth | 90.7% | 2.67 |
| Matthew DellaRusso | NAHL | 89.6% | 86.1% | Northeastern | 66.7% | 21.30 |
| Carson Dorfman | NAHL | 90.1% | 86.6% | RPI | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korbinian Lutz | EHL | 91.0% | 88.0% | Nichols | D3 | 88.8% | 4.09 |
| Dario Cantini | OJHL | 89.8% | 87.7% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 86.1% | 5.00 |
| Connor Graham | MJHL | 89.9% | 87.2% | Alvernia | D3 | 93.2% | 2.19 |
| Jack McGovern | CCHL | 90.2% | 86.7% | Wentworth | D3 | 90.2% | 3.16 |
| Blake Hazelton | USPHL-Premier | 93.8% | 88.0% | Concordia | D3 | 90.3% | 3.97 |
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.