icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | AJHL | 31 | 8 | 19 | 90.3% | 4.24 | 3 | 0.9700 | 81.8% |
| 2023-24 | — | NCDC | 1 | 1 | 0 | 89.7% | 2.77 | 0 | 0.9400 | 83.1% |
| 2023-24 | — | SJHL | 3 | 2 | 0 | 88.1% | 2.76 | 0 | 0.9700 | 84.0% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | 0.9843 | — |
| 2022-23 | — | NAHL | 7 | 2 | 2 | 87.8% | 3.72 | 0 | 0.9843 | 88.5% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Buffalo State | D3 | 14 | — | — | 89.9% | 2.82 | 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% | 83.0% | Sacred Heart | 91.5% | 2.11 |
| Reid Dyck | WHL | 89.0% | 81.5% | Colgate | 89.7% | 3.17 |
| Jacob Zacharewicz | NAHL | 89.2% | 83.4% | Brown | 86.8% | 4.19 |
| Aaron Matthews | NCDC | 90.7% | 81.4% | Providence | — | — |
| Anton Castro | USHL | 88.6% | 81.0% | Wisconsin | 78.6% | 4.27 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Dreger | MJHL | 86.4% | 82.1% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 84.5% | 4.37 |
| Jeffrey Dreger | MJHL | 86.4% | 82.1% | Morrisville | D3 | 84.5% | 4.37 |
| Vincent Lamberti | BCHL | 88.8% | 81.2% | Amherst | D3 | 90.2% | 2.47 |
| Jeremy Skaife | USPHL-Premier | 89.7% | 81.5% | Johnson & Wales | D3 | 83.0% | 5.54 |
| Nikolas Trakakis | MJHL | 87.9% | 83.1% | Chatham | D3 | 93.4% | 2.45 |
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.