icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | RINK HA Kelowna U18 Prep | CSSHL-U18W | 16 | 14 | 0 | 93.6% | 1.33 | 4 | 0.9400 | 73.9% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Bemidji State | D1 | 13 | 2 | 9 | 89.7% | 3.25 | 1 |
| 2023-24 | Bemidji State | D1 | 24 | 4 | 15 | 88.0% | 4.31 | 1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courtney Stagman | USHS-MN-W | 93.3% | 71.4% | Saint Anselm | 91.9% | 2.29 |
| Uma Corniea | USHS-MN-W | 95.8% | 74.2% | Princeton | 90.9% | 2.30 |
| Grace Campbell | USPHL-Elite | 89.5% | 82.4% | Boston College | 92.5% | 2.02 |
| Hailey Hansen | USHS-MN-W | 93.3% | 73.5% | Minnesota | 88.5% | 3.21 |
| Madison Bowtell | CSSHL-U18W | 93.2% | 87.6% | Lindenwood | 86.5% | 4.96 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alejandra Erdman | JWHL-U19 | 84.4% | 82.7% | Connecticut College | D3 | 88.9% | 1.20 |
| Alex Venning | OWHL-U22 | 88.6% | 78.7% | Utica | D3 | 100.0% | — |
| Devyn Amundson | OWHL-U22 | 91.0% | 75.8% | Post | D3 | 84.1% | 6.44 |
| Lily Timmons | USHS-MN-W | 90.9% | 78.2% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 91.7% | 1.53 |
| Eun Bee Huh | OWHL-U22 | 95.3% | 82.6% | Connecticut College | D3 | 89.6% | 1.50 |
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.