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 | 15 | 7 | 5 | 91.1% | 2.89 | 0 | 0.9400 | 84.0% |
| 2024-25 | — | CCHL | 3 | 0 | 2 | 90.1% | 3.51 | 0 | 0.9700 | 83.3% |
| 2023-24 | — | USPHL-Premier | 9 | 8 | 0 | 94.8% | 1.56 | 3 | 0.9400 | 92.1% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Misericordia | D3 | 16 | — | — | 91.2% | 3.24 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Troy Kobryn | NCDC | 92.2% | 83.6% | Merrimack | 89.3% | 3.30 |
| Sam Hillebrandt | OHL | 90.3% | 82.7% | Ohio State | 87.0% | 3.76 |
| Francis Boisvert | CCHL | 92.0% | 84.8% | St. Lawrence | 89.7% | 3.50 |
| Troy Kobryn | USHL | 89.5% | 82.1% | Merrimack | 89.3% | 3.30 |
| Kolby Matthews | BCHL | 90.0% | 85.4% | RIT | 93.3% | 1.69 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clément Labillois | SJHL | 88.9% | 84.4% | Assumption | D2 | 93.6% | 2.08 |
| Carson Ironside | AJHL | 87.8% | 84.2% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 89.3% | 2.76 |
| Nolan Mahaffey | NCDC | 87.4% | 85.4% | Lawrence | D3 | 90.5% | 3.39 |
| Maxim Zinchenko | USPHL-Premier | 91.8% | 85.4% | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 90.8% | 3.68 |
| Ford DeLoss | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 85.8% | Stevenson | D3 | 50.0% | 3.85 |
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.