icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | — | EHL | 28 | 5 | 17 | 91.4% | 3.56 | 1 | 0.9400 | 84.8% |
| 2023-24 | — | EHLP | 19 | 14 | 3 | 92.0% | 2.32 | 1 | 0.9400 | 85.1% |
| 2023-24 | — | EHL | 6 | 1 | 2 | 91.0% | 2.97 | 0 | 0.9400 | 87.7% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Framingham State | D3 | 7 | — | — | 89.0% | 4.21 | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Chauvette | USHL | 89.2% | 84.0% | Union | 90.5% | 2.87 |
| Matthew DellaRusso | NAHL | 89.6% | 86.1% | Northeastern | 66.7% | 21.30 |
| Liam Beerman | USHL | 91.2% | 85.7% | Lindenwood | 90.3% | 3.24 |
| Josh Fleming | QMJHL | 90.8% | 85.6% | Penn State | 92.4% | 2.61 |
| Mathis Rousseau | QMJHL | 90.5% | 84.7% | Maine | 89.6% | 2.59 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Roy | USPHL-Premier | 91.1% | 84.8% | Neumann | D3 | 87.2% | 3.68 |
| Kannon Flageolle | NOJHL | 91.3% | 84.9% | Suffolk | D3 | 89.7% | 3.99 |
| Jack McGovern | CCHL | 90.2% | 86.7% | Wentworth | D3 | 90.2% | 3.16 |
| Jeb Lindy | USPHL-Premier | 89.3% | 83.7% | Arcadia | D3 | 89.6% | 4.06 |
| Jake Horoho | USPHL-Premier | 92.0% | 86.0% | Middlebury | D3 | 89.4% | 3.02 |
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.