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 | 28 | 15 | 8 | 92.3% | 2.44 | 1 | 0.9843 | 86.4% |
| 2024-25 | Sioux City Musketeers | USHL | 1 | — | — | 86.1% | 5.00 | — | 0.9983 | 86.0% |
| 2023-24 | — | AJHL | 6 | 4 | 2 | 89.3% | 3.09 | 0 | 0.9700 | 84.3% |
| 2023-24 | Portland Winterhawks | WHL | 21 | 13 | 7 | 87.6% | 3.81 | 1 | 1.0047 | 84.0% |
| 2022-23 | — | WHL | 25 | 7 | 12 | 88.3% | 4.03 | 0 | 1.0047 | 87.9% |
| 2021-22 | — | WHL | 27 | 5 | 13 | 86.8% | 5.17 | 0 | 1.0047 | 89.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.J. Cataldo | NAHL | 91.8% | 86.1% | Army | 92.2% | 2.41 |
| Ethan Robertson | NAHL | 91.5% | 85.7% | Canisius | 90.4% | 3.25 |
| Andrew Takacs | NAHL | 91.8% | 86.0% | Colgate | 81.8% | 4.32 |
| Isak Posch | NAHL | 92.6% | 86.5% | St. Cloud State | 90.1% | 2.93 |
| Eli Pulver | BCHL | 92.4% | 86.7% | Minnesota | 95.8% | 1.00 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase Hale | NCDC | 91.4% | 86.5% | Albertus Magnus | D3 | 92.2% | 2.54 |
| Kael DePape | NAHL | 89.1% | 85.9% | Williams | D3 | 88.2% | 3.14 |
| Filip Grancarov | EHL | 92.3% | 87.0% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 88.1% | 2.99 |
| Jed Baliotti | NCDC | 91.2% | 86.7% | Colby | D3 | 92.3% | 1.98 |
| Ryan Crowshaw | NAHL | 89.9% | 86.7% | Arcadia | D3 | 94.6% | 1.75 |
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.