icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | — | USPHL-Elite | 1 | 1 | 0 | 97.7% | 1.00 | 0 | 0.9400 | 86.2% |
| 2021-22 | — | USPHL-Premier | 13 | 6 | 3 | 93.3% | 2.00 | 1 | 0.9400 | 85.2% |
| 2020-21 | — | USPHL-Elite | 15 | 12 | 3 | 91.3% | 2.05 | 2 | 0.9400 | 85.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Salem State | D3 | 3 | — | — | 100.0% | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julian Molinaro | AJHL | 91.6% | 85.8% | Northern Michigan | 95.7% | 1.81 |
| Merek Pipes | MJHL | 92.4% | 86.4% | Union | 66.7% | 15.52 |
| Tyler Krivtsov | NAHL | 90.8% | 87.7% | Alaska Anchorage | 89.2% | 3.12 |
| Josh Fleming | QMJHL | 90.8% | 85.6% | Penn State | 92.4% | 2.61 |
| Matthew DellaRusso | NAHL | 89.6% | 86.1% | Northeastern | 66.7% | 21.30 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collin Lemanski | NA3HL | 93.6% | 86.1% | St. Norbert | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Topher Chirico | SJHL | 90.8% | 86.2% | Wentworth | D3 | 91.6% | 3.05 |
| Mason Meyer | USPHL-Premier | 92.8% | 87.3% | Rivier | D3 | 91.4% | 2.07 |
| Caleb Chabot | CCHL | 89.1% | 86.6% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 93.4% | 1.79 |
| 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.