icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | BCHL | 32 | 7 | 21 | 88.8% | 4.16 | 1 | 0.9990 | 78.3% |
| 2023-24 | — | EHL | 7 | 3 | 3 | 93.8% | 2.61 | 0 | 0.9400 | 88.3% |
| 2023-24 | — | BCHL | 11 | 5 | 4 | 90.5% | 3.40 | 1 | 0.9990 | 86.1% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Amherst | D3 | 13 | — | — | 90.2% | 2.47 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luke Lush | AJHL | 91.9% | 77.5% | Sacred Heart | 91.5% | 2.11 |
| Jacob Zacharewicz | NAHL | 89.2% | 79.5% | Brown | 86.8% | 4.19 |
| Aaron Matthews | NCDC | 90.7% | 77.9% | Providence | — | — |
| Charles-Edward Gravel | QMJHL | 91.4% | 77.9% | Mercyhurst | 90.7% | 3.22 |
| Daniel Hauser | WHL | 91.3% | 76.6% | Wisconsin | 90.0% | 2.49 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nikolas Trakakis | MJHL | 87.9% | 78.3% | Chatham | D3 | 93.4% | 2.45 |
| Anthony Bonaldi | USPHL-Premier | 90.6% | 78.2% | Nichols | D3 | 81.8% | 7.78 |
| Jeffrey Dreger | MJHL | 86.4% | 77.7% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 84.5% | 4.37 |
| Blake Bjella | USPHL-Premier | 91.5% | 78.2% | Worcester State | D3 | 87.0% | 3.54 |
| Josh Nadler | AJHL | 89.5% | 78.8% | Hamilton | D3 | 68.8% | 12.03 |
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.