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 | 25 | 12 | 9 | 91.1% | 2.76 | 2 | 0.9843 | 85.9% |
| 2023-24 | — | NCDC | 3 | 0 | 2 | 91.3% | 2.61 | 0 | 0.9400 | 85.2% |
| 2023-24 | — | NAHL | 14 | 5 | 5 | 90.1% | 3.44 | 0 | 0.9843 | 88.4% |
| 2022-23 | — | SJHL | 13 | 5 | 6 | 89.9% | 3.83 | 0 | 0.9700 | 89.5% |
| 2022-23 | — | AJHL | 7 | 4 | 1 | 90.1% | 2.41 | 0 | 0.9700 | 88.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Endicott | D3 | 2 | — | — | 90.6% | 2.11 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Roden | BCHL | 91.2% | 85.8% | Nebraska Omaha | 90.7% | 2.87 |
| David Fessenden | NAHL | 91.5% | 86.1% | Alabama-Huntsville | 86.9% | 4.44 |
| Salvatore Evola | NAHL | 91.7% | 86.4% | Bowling Green | 86.2% | 4.25 |
| Austin Elliott | OHL | 92.4% | 85.7% | UMass Lowell | 88.5% | 3.01 |
| Justen Close | SJHL | 92.8% | 86.0% | Minnesota | 78.6% | 6.09 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacob Gorinsky | OJHL | 89.9% | 86.3% | Norwich | D3 | 83.3% | 5.00 |
| Nicholas Von Kaufmann | OJHL | 88.9% | 85.5% | Marian | D3 | 88.6% | 3.25 |
| Jack Fialkoff | NAHL | 89.0% | 86.3% | Trinity | D3 | 89.3% | 2.68 |
| Jadon Lee | USPHL-Premier | 93.3% | 86.0% | Lebanon Valley | D3 | 93.0% | 2.59 |
| Will Augustine | USPHL-Premier | 94.0% | 86.5% | Rivier | D3 | 91.5% | 2.97 |
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.