icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | NCDC | 13 | 6 | 5 | 92.4% | 2.75 | 1 | 0.9400 | 79.3% |
| 2024-25 | — | NAHL | 5 | 0 | 4 | 88.2% | 3.81 | 0 | 0.9843 | 78.9% |
| 2023-24 | — | NCDC | 28 | 12 | 15 | 92.3% | 3.14 | 2 | 0.9400 | 84.6% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Alvernia | D3 | 9 | — | — | 93.8% | 2.31 | 2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacob Zacharewicz | NAHL | 89.2% | 79.5% | Brown | 86.8% | 4.19 |
| Aaron Matthews | NCDC | 90.7% | 77.9% | Providence | — | — |
| Henry Levy | BCHL | 91.8% | 80.8% | Arizona State | 100.0% | — |
| Teagan Kendrick | BCHL | 91.5% | 80.5% | Sacred Heart | 92.0% | 2.42 |
| Luke Lush | AJHL | 91.9% | 77.5% | Sacred Heart | 91.5% | 2.11 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colby Entz | SJHL | 89.8% | 79.2% | St. Norbert | D3 | 93.0% | 1.88 |
| Logan Gorbitz | USPHL-Premier | 91.8% | 79.4% | Neumann | D3 | 84.4% | 5.24 |
| Dawson Rodin | NOJHL | 92.8% | 79.6% | Marian | D3 | 89.3% | 3.24 |
| Andreai Proctor-Ramirez | AJHL | 90.4% | 79.8% | Marian | D3 | 91.0% | 3.04 |
| Ben Dardis | AJHL | 90.3% | 79.6% | Buffalo State | D3 | 89.9% | 2.82 |
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.