Most Valuable Player can be interpreted in a few different ways, namely: Most Valuable Player in the League vs. Most Valuable Player for their team. Both of those can bring about arguments of who is deserving. What if the MVP is on an already strong team? Are their achievements less impressive? What if the MVP is on a team that got eliminated in round one of the playoffs? Should they be discarded for failing to even fight for the championship?
This year has two goaltenders and one forward nominated for MVP. This is both a blessing and a curse for trying to decide on a player; At least we can compare the goalies head-to-head to choose one from that pair. But to then compare the two positions will take a bit more abstracting of what it means to be the “most valuable”.
Goaltenders
By the numbers
Desbiens and Frankel are very close when it comes to raw stat comparisons, with Desbiens edging out Frankel on most percentage based categories. But by raw numbers, Frankel had to face 45 more shots across the regular season and was still able to keep it close.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 620 | 665 |
| Saves | 592 | 631 |
| GA | 28 | 34 |
| Save % | 95.5% | 94.9% |
| GSAx | +14.8 | +10.9 |
| xGA | 42.8 | 44.9 |
| HD Save % | 89.3% | 90.1% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 249 | 94 |
| Saves | 234 | 84 |
| GA | 15 | 10 |
| Save % | 94.0% | 89.4% |
| GSAx | +4.0 | -3.1 |
| xGA | 19.0 | 6.9 |
| HD Save % | 93.0% | 72.7% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 869 | 759 |
| Saves | 826 | 715 |
| GA | 43 | 44 |
| Save % | 95.1% | 94.2% |
| GSAx | +18.8 | +7.8 |
| xGA | 61.8 | 51.8 |
| HD Save % | 90.4% | 88.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 400 | 437 |
| Saves | 384 | 416 |
| GA | 16 | 21 |
| Save % | 96.0% | 95.2% |
| GSAx | +14.4 | +10.9 |
| xGA | 30.4 | 31.9 |
| HD Save % | 88.8% | 90.5% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 172 | 54 |
| Saves | 164 | 50 |
| GA | 8 | 4 |
| Save % | 95.3% | 92.6% |
| GSAx | +6.0 | +0.1 |
| xGA | 14.0 | 4.1 |
| HD Save % | 92.3% | 90.9% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 572 | 491 |
| Saves | 548 | 466 |
| GA | 24 | 25 |
| Save % | 95.8% | 94.9% |
| GSAx | +20.3 | +11.0 |
| xGA | 44.3 | 36.0 |
| HD Save % | 89.9% | 90.5% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 31 | 48 |
| Saves | 31 | 46 |
| GA | 0 | 2 |
| Save % | 100.0% | 95.8% |
| GSAx | +1.8 | +0.5 |
| xGA | 1.8 | 2.5 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 83.3% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 8 | 8 |
| Saves | 6 | 7 |
| GA | 2 | 1 |
| Save % | 75.0% | 87.5% |
| GSAx | -1.5 | -0.4 |
| xGA | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 50.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 39 | 56 |
| Saves | 37 | 53 |
| GA | 2 | 3 |
| Save % | 94.9% | 94.6% |
| GSAx | +0.2 | +0.1 |
| xGA | 2.2 | 3.1 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 75.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 154 | 117 |
| Saves | 145 | 110 |
| GA | 9 | 7 |
| Save % | 94.2% | 94.0% |
| GSAx | -0.7 | -0.7 |
| xGA | 8.3 | 6.3 |
| HD Save % | 89.8% | 89.2% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 34 | 15 |
| Saves | 32 | 13 |
| GA | 2 | 2 |
| Save % | 94.1% | 86.7% |
| GSAx | -0.3 | -1.3 |
| xGA | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| HD Save % | 90.9% | 75.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 188 | 132 |
| Saves | 177 | 123 |
| GA | 11 | 9 |
| Save % | 94.1% | 93.2% |
| GSAx | -1.0 | -2.1 |
| xGA | 10.0 | 6.9 |
| HD Save % | 90.0% | 87.8% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
Comparing Defensive Help
As explored in my Goaltender of the Year post, simply trying to compare goaltending stats does not paint the full picture. That post also compared the assistance the netminder got from her defensive squad, showing a vast difference between Montreal and the rest of the league. That post largely focused on the complete lack of help Philips received from her defensive squad over at Ottawa. But the next standout was Frankel’s impressive performance in net with a defense at the low-end of average. Frankel boasts the second best save percentage with the second worst defense in the league when it comes to blocking shots.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 1168 | 411 | 757 | 35.2% | +5.2pp | 3.51% | 94.58% |
| VAN | 1253 | 397 | 856 | 31.7% | +1.7pp | 6.46% | 90.54% |
| SEA | 1355 | 423 | 932 | 31.2% | +1.3pp | 6.57% | 90.45% |
| TOR | 1229 | 379 | 850 | 30.8% | +0.9pp | 5.61% | 91.88% |
| MIN | 1169 | 343 | 826 | 29.3% | -0.6pp | 6.24% | 91.16% |
| NY | 1108 | 324 | 784 | 29.2% | -0.7pp | 7.40% | 89.54% |
| BOS | 1101 | 317 | 784 | 28.8% | -1.1pp | 3.91% | 94.52% |
| OTT | 1202 | 279 | 923 | 23.2% | -6.7pp | 5.99% | 92.20% |
League average block %: 29.9%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 391 | 142 | 249 | 36.3% | +6.8pp | 3.84% | 93.98% |
| MIN | 214 | 71 | 143 | 33.2% | +3.7pp | 4.67% | 93.01% |
| OTT | 324 | 83 | 241 | 25.6% | -3.9pp | 5.25% | 92.95% |
| BOS | 122 | 28 | 94 | 23.0% | -6.6pp | 8.20% | 89.36% |
League average block %: 29.5%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 1559 | 553 | 1006 | 35.5% | +5.4pp | 3.59% | 94.43% |
| VAN | 1253 | 397 | 856 | 31.7% | +1.6pp | 6.46% | 90.54% |
| SEA | 1355 | 423 | 932 | 31.2% | +1.2pp | 6.57% | 90.45% |
| TOR | 1229 | 379 | 850 | 30.8% | +0.8pp | 5.61% | 91.88% |
| MIN | 1383 | 414 | 969 | 29.9% | -0.1pp | 6.00% | 91.43% |
| NY | 1108 | 324 | 784 | 29.2% | -0.8pp | 7.40% | 89.54% |
| BOS | 1223 | 345 | 878 | 28.2% | -1.8pp | 4.33% | 93.96% |
| OTT | 1526 | 362 | 1164 | 23.7% | -6.3pp | 5.83% | 92.35% |
League average block %: 30.0%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 771 | 291 | 480 | 37.7% | +7.1pp | 2.98% | 95.21% |
| TOR | 880 | 287 | 593 | 32.6% | +1.9pp | 4.89% | 92.75% |
| SEA | 886 | 288 | 598 | 32.5% | +1.8pp | 5.87% | 91.30% |
| VAN | 856 | 277 | 579 | 32.4% | +1.7pp | 5.14% | 92.40% |
| MIN | 761 | 226 | 535 | 29.7% | -1.0pp | 5.52% | 92.15% |
| NY | 675 | 199 | 476 | 29.5% | -1.2pp | 5.48% | 92.23% |
| BOS | 710 | 199 | 511 | 28.0% | -2.6pp | 3.52% | 95.11% |
| OTT | 805 | 185 | 620 | 23.0% | -7.7pp | 4.72% | 93.87% |
League average block %: 30.7%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 260 | 88 | 172 | 33.8% | +6.7pp | 3.08% | 95.35% |
| MIN | 134 | 40 | 94 | 29.9% | +2.7pp | 4.48% | 93.62% |
| BOS | 70 | 16 | 54 | 22.9% | -4.3pp | 5.71% | 92.59% |
| OTT | 209 | 46 | 163 | 22.0% | -5.1pp | 5.26% | 93.25% |
League average block %: 27.1%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 1031 | 379 | 652 | 36.8% | +6.3pp | 3.01% | 95.25% |
| TOR | 880 | 287 | 593 | 32.6% | +2.1pp | 4.89% | 92.75% |
| SEA | 886 | 288 | 598 | 32.5% | +2.0pp | 5.87% | 91.30% |
| VAN | 856 | 277 | 579 | 32.4% | +1.9pp | 5.14% | 92.40% |
| MIN | 895 | 266 | 629 | 29.7% | -0.8pp | 5.36% | 92.37% |
| NY | 675 | 199 | 476 | 29.5% | -1.0pp | 5.48% | 92.23% |
| BOS | 780 | 215 | 565 | 27.6% | -2.9pp | 3.72% | 94.87% |
| OTT | 1014 | 231 | 783 | 22.8% | -7.7pp | 4.83% | 93.74% |
League average block %: 30.5%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 76 | 22 | 54 | 28.9% | +6.6pp | 2.63% | 96.30% |
| SEA | 98 | 28 | 70 | 28.6% | +6.3pp | 7.14% | 90.00% |
| MIN | 85 | 21 | 64 | 24.7% | +2.4pp | 4.71% | 93.75% |
| MTL | 50 | 11 | 39 | 22.0% | -0.3pp | 2.00% | 97.44% |
| NY | 101 | 22 | 79 | 21.8% | -0.5pp | 9.90% | 87.34% |
| OTT | 53 | 11 | 42 | 20.8% | -1.5pp | 3.77% | 95.24% |
| BOS | 62 | 10 | 52 | 16.1% | -6.2pp | 4.84% | 94.23% |
| TOR | 58 | 9 | 49 | 15.5% | -6.8pp | 6.90% | 91.84% |
League average block %: 22.3%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 8 | 3 | 5 | 37.5% | +15.0pp | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| BOS | 10 | 2 | 8 | 20.0% | -2.5pp | 10.00% | 87.50% |
| MTL | 10 | 2 | 8 | 20.0% | -2.5pp | 20.00% | 75.00% |
| OTT | 16 | 2 | 14 | 12.5% | -10.0pp | 12.50% | 85.71% |
League average block %: 22.5%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 76 | 22 | 54 | 28.9% | +6.7pp | 2.63% | 96.30% |
| SEA | 98 | 28 | 70 | 28.6% | +6.3pp | 7.14% | 90.00% |
| MIN | 93 | 24 | 69 | 25.8% | +3.6pp | 4.30% | 94.20% |
| NY | 101 | 22 | 79 | 21.8% | -0.4pp | 9.90% | 87.34% |
| MTL | 60 | 13 | 47 | 21.7% | -0.6pp | 5.00% | 93.62% |
| OTT | 69 | 13 | 56 | 18.8% | -3.4pp | 5.80% | 92.86% |
| BOS | 72 | 12 | 60 | 16.7% | -5.6pp | 5.56% | 93.33% |
| TOR | 58 | 9 | 49 | 15.5% | -6.7pp | 6.90% | 91.84% |
League average block %: 22.2%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 231 | 79 | 152 | 34.2% | +3.3pp | 4.33% | 93.42% |
| NY | 261 | 86 | 175 | 33.0% | +2.1pp | 9.58% | 85.71% |
| MTL | 284 | 93 | 191 | 32.7% | +1.9pp | 4.23% | 93.72% |
| MIN | 236 | 75 | 161 | 31.8% | +0.9pp | 7.20% | 89.44% |
| SEA | 286 | 85 | 201 | 29.7% | -1.1pp | 6.64% | 90.55% |
| TOR | 222 | 65 | 157 | 29.3% | -1.6pp | 6.76% | 90.45% |
| OTT | 263 | 74 | 189 | 28.1% | -2.7pp | 9.13% | 87.30% |
| VAN | 224 | 63 | 161 | 28.1% | -2.7pp | 8.04% | 88.82% |
League average block %: 30.9%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 61 | 27 | 34 | 44.3% | +8.2pp | 3.28% | 94.12% |
| MIN | 28 | 10 | 18 | 35.7% | -0.3pp | 10.71% | 83.33% |
| OTT | 59 | 21 | 38 | 35.6% | -0.4pp | 1.69% | 97.37% |
| BOS | 21 | 6 | 15 | 28.6% | -7.5pp | 9.52% | 86.67% |
League average block %: 36.0%.
| Team | SA-Ag | Blocks | Reached | Block % | vs avg | GA/att | Sv % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTL | 345 | 120 | 225 | 34.8% | +3.5pp | 4.06% | 93.78% |
| BOS | 252 | 85 | 167 | 33.7% | +2.4pp | 4.76% | 92.81% |
| NY | 261 | 86 | 175 | 33.0% | +1.7pp | 9.58% | 85.71% |
| MIN | 264 | 85 | 179 | 32.2% | +0.9pp | 7.58% | 88.83% |
| SEA | 286 | 85 | 201 | 29.7% | -1.6pp | 6.64% | 90.55% |
| OTT | 322 | 95 | 227 | 29.5% | -1.8pp | 7.76% | 88.99% |
| TOR | 222 | 65 | 157 | 29.3% | -2.0pp | 6.76% | 90.45% |
| VAN | 224 | 63 | 161 | 28.1% | -3.2pp | 8.04% | 88.82% |
League average block %: 31.3%.
Penalty Kills
To try to take the emphasis off of the gap in defense, we will look more into performance when on a penalty kill. Being down a defender, more pressure is put on the goaltender and makes them prove their stuff. Surprisingly, the stats here actually flip with Desbiens facing far more shots against. However, their GSAx and save percentages become nearly identical, showing that when put up to the test both Desbiens and Frankel are at the top of the league (and it’s not close).
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 620 | 665 |
| Saves | 592 | 631 |
| GA | 28 | 34 |
| Save % | 95.5% | 94.9% |
| GSAx | +14.8 | +10.9 |
| xGA | 42.8 | 44.9 |
| HD Save % | 89.3% | 90.1% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 249 | 94 |
| Saves | 234 | 84 |
| GA | 15 | 10 |
| Save % | 94.0% | 89.4% |
| GSAx | +4.0 | -3.1 |
| xGA | 19.0 | 6.9 |
| HD Save % | 93.0% | 72.7% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 869 | 759 |
| Saves | 826 | 715 |
| GA | 43 | 44 |
| Save % | 95.1% | 94.2% |
| GSAx | +18.8 | +7.8 |
| xGA | 61.8 | 51.8 |
| HD Save % | 90.4% | 88.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 400 | 437 |
| Saves | 384 | 416 |
| GA | 16 | 21 |
| Save % | 96.0% | 95.2% |
| GSAx | +14.4 | +10.9 |
| xGA | 30.4 | 31.9 |
| HD Save % | 88.8% | 90.5% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 172 | 54 |
| Saves | 164 | 50 |
| GA | 8 | 4 |
| Save % | 95.3% | 92.6% |
| GSAx | +6.0 | +0.1 |
| xGA | 14.0 | 4.1 |
| HD Save % | 92.3% | 90.9% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 572 | 491 |
| Saves | 548 | 466 |
| GA | 24 | 25 |
| Save % | 95.8% | 94.9% |
| GSAx | +20.3 | +11.0 |
| xGA | 44.3 | 36.0 |
| HD Save % | 89.9% | 90.5% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 31 | 48 |
| Saves | 31 | 46 |
| GA | 0 | 2 |
| Save % | 100.0% | 95.8% |
| GSAx | +1.8 | +0.5 |
| xGA | 1.8 | 2.5 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 83.3% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 8 | 8 |
| Saves | 6 | 7 |
| GA | 2 | 1 |
| Save % | 75.0% | 87.5% |
| GSAx | -1.5 | -0.4 |
| xGA | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 50.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 39 | 56 |
| Saves | 37 | 53 |
| GA | 2 | 3 |
| Save % | 94.9% | 94.6% |
| GSAx | +0.2 | +0.1 |
| xGA | 2.2 | 3.1 |
| HD Save % | 100.0% | 75.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 154 | 117 |
| Saves | 145 | 110 |
| GA | 9 | 7 |
| Save % | 94.2% | 94.0% |
| GSAx | -0.7 | -0.7 |
| xGA | 8.3 | 6.3 |
| HD Save % | 89.8% | 89.2% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 34 | 15 |
| Saves | 32 | 13 |
| GA | 2 | 2 |
| Save % | 94.1% | 86.7% |
| GSAx | -0.3 | -1.3 |
| xGA | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| HD Save % | 90.9% | 75.0% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shots faced | 188 | 132 |
| Saves | 177 | 123 |
| GA | 11 | 9 |
| Save % | 94.1% | 93.2% |
| GSAx | -1.0 | -2.1 |
| xGA | 10.0 | 6.9 |
| HD Save % | 90.0% | 87.8% |
Highlighted cell = leader among the three goalies in that stat. For GA and xGA, lower is better.
Stolen Wins
To even further put the onus on the goaltender, what if we looked at games where the whole team underperformed? This section compares “Stolen Wins” where the expected goals against is greater than the expected goals for, meaning it takes exceptional goalkeeping to keep her team in the game. Both Frankel and Desbiens show that they truly have the team on their backs, even when the team can’t produce goals.
|
MTL
Ann-Renée Desbiens
|
BOS
Aerin Frankel
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Stolen wins | 2 | 2 |
| Stolen games | 9 | 10 |
| Games played | 25 | 26 |
| Best single-game Sv% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Sv% in low-support games | 95.6% | 95.2% |
Highlighted cell = leader between the two goalie finalists. A stolen win is the strict case — a win the team was out-chanced in (xGF < xGA) where her goals-saved-above-expected covered the margin (the team scored no more than its expected goals-against, so at league-average goaltending it isn't a win). A stolen game is the broader save-percentage version: a .940+ night with little support (≤2 goals or outshot) that ended in a win or tie. "Games played" is inferred from which netminder faced the most shots that game.
Desbiens Has The Edge
At this point I’ve tried dissecting games to see if there is true differentiation between Frankel and Desbiens. Diving into situations that isolate goaltender performance, they often are hand in hand at the top of the charts. Frankel stands out in that she often overcomes the lack of shot-blocking help from her defense, where Desbiens has the best defense in the league by a mile. But Desbiens separates herself in goal suppression: her GSAx (goals saved above expected) sits clearly ahead of Frankel’s, marking her as the noticeably more impactful of the two at stopping more than her share. And at the end of the day, Desbiens won the Walter Cup and Frankel didn’t.
What about Pannek?
Now that we’ve named Desbiens the most valuable goaltender, how does Pannek match up?
As explored in The Forward of the Year post, Kelly Pannek is the clear forerunner for that award. But when compared to Desbiens, does she have enough influence on the ice to contend for MVP?
Looking at Pannek’s stats, she leads the league in point contribution even off of noticeably fewer attempts. Where she falls behind is in recorded hits, but that is made up for by her physical presence in front of the crease, recording the lowest average distance to net per goal. Meaning she is up front and center, out-muscling defenders to get shots on goal.
|
Kelly Pannek
|
|
|---|---|
| Goals |
16
#1 of 119
|
| Primary assists |
7
#12 of 119
|
| Secondary assists |
10
#1 of 119
|
| Points |
33
#1 of 119
|
| Shots |
57
#35 of 119
|
| Hits |
7
#92 of 119
|
| xG Diff (on-ice) |
+5.5
#7 of 119
|
Rank is among all PWHL forwards in the regular season. Points = goals + primary assists + secondary assists.
Moving into a play-based angle, Pannek’s ability to create scoring chances is also at the top of the league. She is only second to Alex Carpenter in the Playmaker category, and is an incredible faceoff winner. Even when she is not officially credited with a point, Pannek finds a way to make goals happen.
| 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 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 32 | 141 | |
| MIN Taylor Heise | 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.
|
Kelly Pannek
|
|
|---|---|
| Win % | 59.4% |
| Wins | 341 |
| Losses | 233 |
| Wins / game | 11.4 |
| Faceoff-to-shot % | 35.8% |
| Faceoff wins → goal chains | 17 |
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.
Carrying the Team
Mirroring our assessment of Desbiens and Frankel stealing wins away from opponents by overperforming, we look at Pannek’s ability to score goals when her team needs her. While the numbers look impressive for her involvement in winning close games, her case is actually lowered by the fact that Minnesota’s offense is near the top of the league. In no scenario were the Frost outcompeted in expected goals, meaning the offense was almost always firing. Pannek did however have an outsized contribution in securing points where the offense may have been active but not necessarily converting those shots.
Stolen wins = wins where her offence covered the margin — her goals + assists in the game were at least the final margin of victory, so removing her involvement erases the lead (the attacking mirror of a goalie's stolen win). Scoring-point credit share = her goals + primary + secondary assists in a game divided by her team's goals that game (averaged across games her team scored in). Games with a hand in half+ counts games where that share was 50%+. Low-output carry games = games her team scored two or fewer goals yet she still recorded a point.
The next look into her team impact is how the Frost do when she is on vs off the ice. Pannek shows that when on the ice she improves both the offensive and defensive side of things, with a +0.7 xG/60 when on the ice compared to the rest of her team. While informative for comparing Pannek to the rest of her team’s performance, it is difficult to properly align this to Desbiens’s as Pannek is not playing the whole game.
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).
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).
Muddying the Waters
As mentioned above, Pannek is a top tier point contributor for the Frost. The difficult part for her case though is that Minnesota has several top tier forwards, including a co-nominee for Forward of the Year in Taylor Heise. So despite her stats being impressive, it appears to be a conjoined effort of the team — on a stacked forward group, Pannek isn’t the clear xG+ leader.
| Forward | G | A1 | A2 | Pts | Shots | Hits | xG± |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kelly Pannek | 16 | 7 | 10 | 33 | 57 | 7 | +5.5 |
| Taylor Heise | 13 | 10 | 7 | 30 | 89 | 21 | +3.5 |
| Britta Curl-Salemme | 11 | 10 | 8 | 29 | 64 | 29 | +2.8 |
| Kendall Coyne Schofield | 12 | 7 | 4 | 23 | 71 | 11 | +6.3 |
| Grace Zumwinkle | 13 | 8 | 2 | 23 | 82 | 3 | +3.7 |
| Abby Hustler | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 54 | 30 | +2.6 |
Minnesota's top six forwards by points, regular season. Highlighted cell = team leader in that column; highlighted row = Kelly Pannek. Ranks here are within Minnesota's forwards, not the whole league. xG± is on-ice expected-goal differential; A1/A2 are primary/secondary assists.
Desbiens for MVP
So how do we draw the winner? Desbiens outshines every other goaltender, but has a great defense to help her out. Pannek leads the league in creating goal scoring opportunities, but is backed up by a stellar offensive squad that actually converts their chances.
My vote goes for Desbiens.
Consistent performances, leading penalty kill saves, and the ability to carry her team when needed, Desbiens does it all.