Your nominees for Finalist of the year are Taylor Heise, Kelly Pannek, and Brianne Jenner. I am taking a pragmatic approach to my nomination for this award, focusing on 2 metrics for each player:
- Scoring goals
- Enabling their team to score goals
This post will run down the common statistics for the forward position, as well as a few derived stats to highlight individual player impact on creating goal scoring chances. I’ll be up front with you: Kelly Pannek leads almost all of them and is probably a shoo-in for the award.
The numbers each finalist puts up
Kelly Pannek is the leader in goals, secondary assists, and total point production, missing out on the sweep only on primary assists. The wild part is that she has done this off of only 57 shots, 22 and 32 behind Jenner and Heise respectively. That is seriously impressive efficiency. The one metric she truly lags behind in is hits, with only 7, putting her near the bottom of the league. This lack of physicality is surprising, as she has the shortest average distance from net per goal at ~28 feet, meaning she is fighting for position in front of the net and winning that fight often.
|
Taylor Heise
|
Kelly Pannek
|
Brianne Jenner
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals |
13
#4 of 119
|
16
#1 of 119
|
12
#6 of 119
|
| Primary assists |
10
#3 of 119
|
7
#12 of 119
|
10
#3 of 119
|
| Secondary assists |
7
#4 of 119
|
10
#1 of 119
|
4
#17 of 119
|
| Points |
30
#2 of 119
|
33
#1 of 119
|
26
#4 of 119
|
| Shots |
89
#6 of 119
|
57
#35 of 119
|
79
#10 of 119
|
| Hits |
21
#40 of 119
|
7
#92 of 119
|
27
#27 of 119
|
| xG Diff (on-ice) |
+3.5
#22 of 119
|
+5.5
#7 of 119
|
-4.5
#114 of 119
|
Rank is among all PWHL forwards in the regular season. Points = goals + primary assists + secondary assists.
Play Maker — involvement in scoring sequences
The Playmaker stat is my attempt at showing player activity that leads to shots/goals for their team. Playmaker extends past the usual point attribution of goal/primary assist/secondary assist to add in blocks, hits, and other events that are part of a continuous scoring sequence. In other words, how often is a player involved when something good happens for their team.
For forwards, this stat is actually led by my Torrent’s own Alex Carpenter, who leads the list even with only 20 points compared to Pannek’s 33 largely due to her involvement in shot opportunities. After Carpy though are our three finalists, with Pannek once again leading by a fairly healthy margin.
| Forward | Play Points | G | A1 | A2 | Scoring chains | Shot chains |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEA Alex Carpenter | 12 | 2 | 6 | 28 | 189 | |
| MIN Kelly Pannek finalist | 16 | 7 | 10 | 37 | 138 | |
| OTT Brianne Jenner finalist | 12 | 10 | 4 | 32 | 141 | |
| MIN Taylor Heise finalist | 13 | 10 | 7 | 34 | 128 | |
| NY Sarah Fillier | 9 | 5 | 9 | 26 | 126 | |
| BOS Alina Müller | 4 | 12 | 5 | 25 | 130 | |
| MTL Abby Roque | 8 | 8 | 6 | 28 | 112 | |
| NY Casey O'Brien | 7 | 9 | 6 | 24 | 122 |
Play Points = 1.0 per scoring chain + 0.4 per shot chain + 1.0 per goal + 0.6 per primary assist (A1) + 0.3 per secondary assist (A2). A possession chain is a continuous stretch where one team has the puck, ending when the other team takes possession. A scoring chain ends in a goal; a shot chain produced at least one shot but no goal. A player counts toward a chain if they have a tracked event in it (a shot, hit, blocked shot, or faceoff win) — or are credited as the A1 or A2 assister on the goal, even if their pass wasn't logged as its own event.
On-ice impact — xG with her on the ice vs off
This section explores team performance on the offensive and defensive side when each player is on or off the ice. All three finalists show a net positive xG/60min with only Brianne Jenner having a negative score on defense. However, Ottawa’s defense is one of the worst in the league (as explored in my case for Gwyneth Philips as GoTY) so a -0.19 is probably overperforming. All in all, this comparison is effectively a wash as Pannek barely edges out Heise.
Taylor Heise
| Metric (per 60) | On ice | Off ice | Δ on − off |
|---|---|---|---|
| xGF/60 (offense) | 2.29 | 2.04 | +0.26 |
| xGA/60 (defense) | 1.90 | 2.07 | +0.16 |
| Net xG/60 | +0.39 | -0.03 | +0.42 |
536 min on ice · 1287 min off (her games).
Kelly Pannek
| Metric (per 60) | On ice | Off ice | Δ on − off |
|---|---|---|---|
| xGF/60 (offense) | 2.34 | 2.01 | +0.33 |
| xGA/60 (defense) | 1.77 | 2.13 | +0.36 |
| Net xG/60 | +0.57 | -0.12 | +0.69 |
565 min on ice · 1257 min off (her games).
Brianne Jenner
| Metric (per 60) | On ice | Off ice | Δ on − off |
|---|---|---|---|
| xGF/60 (offense) | 2.15 | 1.93 | +0.23 |
| xGA/60 (defense) | 2.62 | 2.32 | -0.30 |
| Net xG/60 | -0.47 | -0.40 | -0.07 |
576 min on ice · 1253 min off (her games).
On-ice = her team's expected goals for/against per 60 while she is on the ice; off-ice = the rest of her team's minutes in the same games. Net xG/60 = xGF/60 − xGA/60. Green = the team is better with her on the ice; red = worse. For the xGA/60 row the color is inverted (allowing fewer chances is good).
Faceoffs — and what wins lead to
The last stat I will explore is faceoffs, with a slightly deeper dive into how a player’s faceoff win leads to scoring opportunities for her team. In what is probably no surprise at this point, Pannek sweeps the whole category. She has the highest win%, most wins total, and her faceoff wins lead to the highest shot percentage and actual goals scored. These numbers are out of context of the individual game scenario, but Pannek does seem to have the magic touch.
|
Taylor Heise
|
Kelly Pannek
|
Brianne Jenner
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Win % | 49.6% | 59.4% | 57.1% |
| Wins | 221 | 341 | 311 |
| Losses | 225 | 233 | 234 |
| Wins / game | 7.4 | 11.4 | 10.4 |
| Faceoff-to-shot % | 31.7% | 35.8% | 30.5% |
| Faceoff wins → goal chains | 11 | 17 | 9 |
Regular season. Win % = wins / (wins + losses), now that both faceoff participants are recorded. Faceoff-to-shot % = the share of a player's faceoff wins whose possession chain produced a shot on goal; faceoff wins → goal chains = wins whose chain ended in a goal.
Conclusion
It’s the Kelly Pannek show, and we’re all just here to sit back and enjoy. She leads the league in almost every measured category, and excels in setting her team up for success. There is most definitely a reason she is a finalist for MVP this year, and I think has a serious case for it.