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 | 43 | 23 | 16 | 91.6% | 3.00 | 1 | 0.9843 | 83.4% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 28 | 15 | 11 | 90.5% | 2.84 | 1 | 0.9990 | 87.8% |
| 2022-23 | — | BCHL | 34 | 18 | 12 | 90.2% | 2.91 | 1 | 0.9990 | 93.3% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Suffolk | D3 | 27 | — | — | 91.0% | 2.04 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| William Gramme | NAHL | 91.9% | 83.7% | Wisconsin | 95.9% | 1.13 |
| Ajeetpal Gundarah | BCHL | 93.1% | 83.6% | Sacred Heart | 93.6% | 1.90 |
| Justen Close | SJHL | 92.8% | 82.4% | Minnesota | 78.6% | 6.09 |
| Owen Say | BCHL | 92.3% | 82.7% | Mercyhurst | 90.3% | 3.39 |
| Cooper Black | BCHL | 92.4% | 82.9% | Dartmouth | 89.9% | 3.07 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tucker Hanson | EHL | 89.0% | 83.9% | Saint Anselm | D2 | 100.0% | — |
| Christian Green | MJHL | 91.8% | 83.3% | Neumann | D3 | 93.6% | 1.97 |
| Matthew Malin | AJHL | 90.7% | 82.1% | St. Olaf | D3 | 90.6% | 2.47 |
| Will Augustine | USPHL-Premier | 94.0% | 82.5% | Rivier | D3 | 91.5% | 2.97 |
| Jadon Lee | USPHL-Premier | 93.3% | 82.1% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 93.0% | 2.59 |
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.