icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | Centennial/SLP High (women) | USHS-MN-W | 28 | 23 | 2 | 95.5% | 1.19 | 7 | 0.9200 | 78.1% |
| 2022-23 | Centennial/SLP High (women) | USHS-MN-W | 29 | 15 | 8 | 92.7% | 2.02 | 6 | 0.9200 | 80.8% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | Bemidji State | D1 | 22 | 3 | 19 | 88.7% | 3.98 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grace Zhan | USHS-MN-W | 94.6% | 77.1% | Dartmouth | 94.1% | 1.00 |
| Erika Lind | CSSHL-U18W | 93.2% | 78.6% | Mercyhurst | 88.4% | 5.23 |
| Samantha Phelan | 19U-AAA-W | 88.8% | 83.4% | St. Lawrence | — | — |
| Farah Walker | CSSHL-U18W | 95.3% | 78.5% | Colgate | 92.5% | 1.67 |
| 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 |
| Harper Powell | USHS-MN-W | 91.5% | 82.7% | Hamline | D3 | 92.3% | 1.17 |
| Claire Bronson | USHS-MN-W | 95.7% | 85.9% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 90.3% | 1.90 |
| J'Anne Colbow | CSSHL-U18W | 89.8% | 80.1% | SUNY Morrisville | D3 | 92.9% | 2.15 |
| Mav Margraf | USHS-MN-W | 91.9% | 80.2% | Worcester State | D3 | 90.0% | 2.56 |
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.