icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 25 | 9 | 11 | 90.7% | 3.10 | 0 | 0.9843 | 85.6% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 15 | 2 | 10 | 88.1% | 3.60 | 0 | 0.9843 | 89.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 12 | 5 | 4 | 91.2% | 2.74 | 1 | 0.9843 | 97.0% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Endicott | D3 | 27 | — | — | 93.3% | 1.63 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Callum Tung | BCHL | 91.7% | 85.8% | UConn | 93.3% | 2.01 |
| Brandon Perrone | NAHL | 91.2% | 85.4% | Alaska Anchorage | 87.2% | 3.66 |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 86.3% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
| Ethan David | BCHL | 90.9% | 85.5% | RIT | 90.9% | 2.68 |
| Lassi Lehti | NAHL | 92.0% | 87.0% | Alaska Fairbanks | 83.3% | 5.56 |
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 |
| Brady Quackenbush | EHL | 88.2% | 85.2% | Salve Regina | D3 | 88.5% | 2.01 |
| Topher Chirico | SJHL | 90.8% | 84.6% | Wentworth | D3 | 91.6% | 3.05 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 85.0% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
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.