icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | MJHL | 45 | 33 | 9 | 91.8% | 2.29 | 5 | 0.9700 | 79.5% |
| 2023-24 | — | AJHL | 21 | 12 | 5 | 87.8% | 3.01 | 1 | 0.9700 | 82.2% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 12 | 2 | 8 | 83.5% | 4.90 | 0 | 0.9990 | 80.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Neumann | D3 | 17 | — | — | 93.6% | 1.97 | 4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Elliott | OHL | 92.4% | 79.6% | UMass Lowell | 88.5% | 3.01 |
| Ryan Keyes | NCDC | 92.6% | 79.7% | Merrimack | 92.0% | 2.22 |
| Jacob Steinman | QMJHL | 92.3% | 79.8% | Bowling Green | 92.1% | 2.14 |
| Austin Roden | BCHL | 91.2% | 81.1% | Nebraska Omaha | 90.7% | 2.87 |
| Yan Shostak | USHL | 91.1% | 78.6% | St. Cloud State | 89.7% | 3.08 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicholas Von Kaufmann | OJHL | 88.9% | 79.9% | Marian | D3 | 88.6% | 3.25 |
| Dean Hahn | USPHL-Premier | 91.6% | 80.0% | Salem State | D3 | 88.9% | 3.95 |
| Jacob Gorinsky | OJHL | 89.9% | 80.7% | Norwich | D3 | 83.3% | 5.00 |
| Owen Swanbon | USPHL-Premier | 90.4% | 79.8% | Framingham State | D3 | 83.3% | 8.53 |
| Jeffrey Reda | USPHL-Premier | 90.6% | 80.1% | Franklin Pierce | D2 | 85.9% | 5.85 |
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.