Stop Winning Faceoffs Forward: A deep dive into the analytics of faceoffs

Lacrosse, at all levels, has only ever tracked faceoff performance with one stat: FO%. This does a decent job of measuring overall performance, but there is so much more that goes into every draw. Not all faceoff wins – or losses – are created equal, and they shouldn’t be measured as such. In the PLL, especially since the introduction of the 32-second shot clock after faceoffs in 2023, the way faceoff specialists convert wins into offense is more important than ever.

I went into this story trying to figure out what makes one type of faceoff win better than another, and which players do this better than others. I figured that it would all come down to time, like I concluded in my last story about clearing. A faceoff that is won quickly is more valuable than a faceoff that is won slowly — makes sense, right?

It turns out that this has little impact on offensive efficiency following the faceoff. Sure, it’s still better to win faster than slower, but fast faceoffs tend to lead to uncontrolled breaks.

But there was one variable that made a huge impact: winning backward.

Since 2023, when the 32-second shot clock was created, there have been 2,876 faceoffs. 53% of these draws were won backward. After winning backward, teams scored on 26.1% of the ensuing possessions. After winning forward, this rate dropped to 16.2%. This isn’t just some small difference that could be attributed to confounding variables; the average PLL team is over 50% more likely to score after winning faceoffs backward compared to winning forward.

Teams have struggled with how best to approach the 32-second shot clock since its introduction. It’s been harder to score in these possessions because of the time limit, and coaches have experimented tirelessly with various strategies to bridge this gap. Efficiency has steadily improved — from 20.5% in the first season, to 21.7% in 2024, and now up to 22.3% this year. Teams without stars at the stripe, like the Boston Cannons and Philadelphia Waterdogs, tried not rostering a faceoff specialist and playing faceoffs defensively before ditching the strategy completely this season.

More recently, there’s been a noticeable shift toward prioritizing offensive midfielders capable of taking wings on faceoffs in the draft, including Andrew McAdorey (No. 2 overall pick in 2025), Sam English (No. 3 overall pick in 2025), Jake Stevens (No. 10 overall pick in 2024) and Adam Poitras (No. 27 overall pick in 2024). These players allow teams with strong faceoff specialists, like the California Redwoods, New York Atlas and Maryland Whipsnakes to avoid wasting time subbing after winning draws.

The gap in efficiency between 32- and 52-second possessions has closed each season since its introduction. Teams are getting smarter and better at approaching these possessions. Interestingly enough, though, simply focusing on winning faceoffs backward can be used to make up the gap in efficiency between 32- and 52-second possessions.

At first glance, this might seem counterintuitive: Possessions following backward faceoff wins have actually been outperforming traditional 52-second possessions this season. What explains this? Why do forward wins, which seemingly create instant fast-break opportunities, yield such poor outcomes? The answer primarily revolves around two factors: Backward wins create substitution and personnel advantages, and relying on faceoff specialists to lead fast breaks rarely translates into good offense.

Alec Stathakis and Joe Nardella have displayed the pros of winning backward more than anyone this season, leading the league by doing so at rates of 67% and 66%, respectively.

Bill Tierney and the Waterdogs consistently leverage these backward wins to trap opposing faceoff specialists on defense and force them into difficult matchups. For example, in this clip, Stathakis wins backward to himself, traps Zac Tucci on defense and immediately goes to pick for Michael Sowers. Tucci gets lost on the switch, forcing Boston to slide early, which results in an easy goal for Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, Jim Stagnitta and the Whips have been approaching these possessions a little differently. Here, Nardella wins backward to Colin Squires and immediately runs to the box. This creates a substitution advantage for Levi Anderson, who sprints straight to the cage for an easy goal.

Both of these strategies use the faceoff specialist as an offensive weapon without putting the ball in their stick. The more the attack has the ball, the better, as they’re statistically twice as likely to score or assist a shot when they touch the ball, and less likely to turn the ball over compared to faceoff specialists.

Some faceoff specialists, like Denver’s Luke Wierman, have been winning the opposite way. This season, Wierman has gone forward on 64% of his wins, the highest rate in the league. While that number is very impressive from a faceoff perspective, it hasn’t translated into offensive success.

Out of the 42 possessions following Wierman’s forward wins, the Outlaws have scored only five goals. Conversely, they’ve scored six goals from just 16 possessions following backward wins. This is a major factor behind the Outlaws’ struggles in 32-second possessions — ranking second-worst in the league — despite having the best 52-second offense overall.

Meanwhile, teams like the Waterdogs and Whipsnakes have effectively used backward wins to fuel the top two 32-second offenses in the league.

If Wierman shifted toward the league average of 53% backward faceoff wins (up from his current 24%) and all other numbers remained the same, Denver’s offensive efficiency would jump from 16.7% to 25.8%, which would be the third-best mark in the league.

There isn’t a single team this season that is better when their faceoff specialist wins forward. The closest example is California, which has been fueled by TD Ierlan’s best offensive season. Ierlan is leading all faceoff specialists with five points while shooting 37% and only committing two turnovers.

However, consistently excelling both at faceoffs and offense is very rare. It’s a bit like a baseball team having to rely on its pitcher to also be a great hitter. Until lacrosse’s equivalent of Shohei Ohtani comes along, it’s better to just win backward and get the ball to your offense.

It’s not as simple as just deciding to win backward, though. Like all parts of lacrosse, there are a ton of other factors that allow Stathakis and Nardella to win backward at the rate they are. Maybe the biggest factor is wing play, and Philly and Maryland have some of the best ground ball artists in the world.

Not every team has Colin Squires and Adam Poitras on their wings, so winning backward is a lot easier said than done, but if more faceoff specialists prioritized it like Nardella, I think these numbers could be replicated.

Overall, shifting the focus on faceoffs to winning backward could fix a lot of the problems teams have been having in 32-second possessions. The model the Waterdogs and Whipsnakes have been using this season is simple and effective: Win backward to your wings, get the ball to your attack and use your faceoff specialist off-ball to create matchups.

I’m not saying faceoff specialists should never go for a quick win out front and push transition. A faceoff goal is maybe the most exciting play in the sport. But prioritizing backward wins seems to be the best way to approach faceoffs in today’s PLL.