icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
| Season | Team | League | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO | SVe Factor | Age-Adj SV% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | Ottawa Lady 67's U22 | OWHL-U22 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 88.6% | 3.79 | 0 | 0.9700 | 77.9% |
| Season | School | Div | GP | W | L | SV% | GAA | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Utica | D3 | 15 | 3 | 7 | 93.1% | 1.85 | 1 |
| 2024-25 | Utica | D3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | — | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farah Walker | CSSHL-U18W | 95.3% | 78.5% | Colgate | 92.5% | 1.67 |
| Uma Corniea | USHS-MN-W | 95.8% | 74.2% | Princeton | 90.9% | 2.30 |
| Courtney Stagman | USHS-MN-W | 93.3% | 71.4% | Saint Anselm | 91.9% | 2.29 |
| Madison Bowtell | CSSHL-U18W | 93.2% | 87.6% | Lindenwood | 86.5% | 4.96 |
| Eva Filippova | CSSHL-U18W | 93.6% | 73.9% | Bemidji State | 88.0% | 4.31 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lily Timmons | USHS-MN-W | 90.9% | 78.2% | Gustavus Adolphus | D3 | 91.7% | 1.53 |
| Sarah Peterson | USHS-MN-W | 93.5% | 79.4% | Bowdoin | D3 | 93.8% | 1.85 |
| Alejandra Erdman | JWHL-U19 | 84.4% | 82.7% | Connecticut College | D3 | 88.9% | 1.20 |
| Mav Margraf | USHS-MN-W | 91.9% | 80.2% | Worcester State | D3 | 90.0% | 2.56 |
| Jordana DeMarinis | OWHL-U22 | 89.4% | 87.6% | St. Michael's College | D3 | 91.5% | 3.78 |
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.