Tales From the Clipped: Why Is Radek Faksa's Offense So Awful?

Let's run the tale of the tape and see what makes Faksa's offense so corrosive.

I want to skip past the outrage; of seeing Radek Faksa on the power play; watching him go four months without a goal while players who could score were healthy scratched (subsequently becoming afterthoughts once the playoffs rolled around); or when he led the forwards in icetime. The less you think about his literal across-the-board awfulness, the better. Let’s be diplomatic and focus on Faksa in the abstract.

After all, Faksa used to be a good defensive forward who could chip in offense against the tide of tough competition. Hell I was there in 2016 arguing that fact. But I have a rule about facts: when the facts change, I change my mind. And Faksa has changed. Re-watching some of his shifts, it’s easy to see why.

This may seem like one big obvious exercise. But the argument here is not: Faksa can’t produce, therefore he’s bad. Rather: Faksa can’t produce nor can he perform, therefore Dallas’ offense is abandoned by his very on-ice presence. I think that’s an important distinction because it’s easy to argue that a player is bad at some things and move on; much harder to argue that they’re basically…an infection. If a good player can make others around him better, then the logic follows that a bad player can make others around him worse.

I am Faksa’s complete lack of vision along the halfwall.

I realize players are subject to rules like ‘gets pucks on net.’ But we can separate plays that are influenced by systems versus plays that are influenced by bad reads. Here, Faksa — with nothing but room and space on the halfwall — decides to lob the puck at the goalie because hey, you never know! Let’s consider his alternatives:

• Drop the puck back to Lindell, who can shoot from the point just in time for the forward in front to get closer to the net for a rebound/redirect.

• Cycle back to Tanner Kero, who actually does a lowkey good job here of shifting toward the dot and then back to the wall, creating a surprising amount of space in the corner. It’s an option for other teams at least.

• Check for the open RHD.

• Hold possession.

Sure, these other options might not guarantee a shot on net, but there’s a non-zero chance in each that keeping the play alive in the offensive zone is better for territory than this generic “chance.” More critically the bulleted aren’t considerations for Faksa because he simply isn’t looking. He’s making zero effort to take a snapshot of where everyone is on the ice. What sucks is the play starts off well with Faksa puckjacking Tom Wilson. Effective physicality isn’t about lazy analogies to biological evolution. It’s about leverage. Arpon Basu has a fantastic article about this in The Athletic about why the silky smooth 6’4 center former Blackhawk (now Canadien) Kirby Dach hasn’t reached his potential. Faksa, for all of his faults, has the right mindset about leverage. But this play is a lesson in raw dimensions not being the only thing that can lack size.

I am Faksa’s complete lack of confidence with the puck.

Faksa’s offensive decline isn’t just about his lack of creativity; it’s also about his lack of skills. From this clip there’s absolutely zero reason for this puck to end up on the tape of NYR. Stuff like this is what Marty St. Louis means when he says he’d rather see a player make a bad read than no read at all. Here Faksa could have:

• Tried to pass to Heiskanen.

• Recognized NYR’s man on man coverage and dumped the puck into the right corner for a 50/50 battle.

• Recognized NYR’s man on man coverage and dumped the puck into the left corner for a 50/50 battle.

• Held the puck to maneuver past the forechecker.

Why is shitting his pants his only option?

• He doesn’t have the puck handling skills to angle cleanly for a cross-ice pass to Heiskanen.

• He doesn’t have the passing skills to find a seem.

• He’s thinking about the ice in front of him rather than the ice available to all.

• He doesn’t have the skating edgework to slip past a man in the open (he needs a bench for that). To be fair that’s a risky play. But a play like that is where systems can help players confidently take risks. Colorado is famous for plays in these scenarios.

Again, these clips are less about what Faksa is doing wrong, and more about the opportunities that are left on the table for others. It’s not just a careless play. It’s a thoughtless one. Never was his lack of reads more noticeable than when Rick Bowness put him on the power play.

I am Bowness’ inexplicable desire to see Faksa on the Power Play.

Here Heiskanen makes a clean pass to Corey Perry, who then beats his man with a sweet little toe drag. Faksa, the trailer, instead of slowing down for more space drives himself right into the crease. If he had backed off, he would have been open and uncovered if Perry had decided to pass. Notice the lack of head movement; I’m not sure he even knows Hintz is already charging the crease. He’s doing nothing here except making Perry’s scoring chance easier to defend.

Almost the exact same thing happened in Edmonton.

Instead of backing up to become a passing option and draw defenders away from the strongside, he just chugs mindlessly into traffic. Again, head movement; tracking the puck instead of the play. In fairness, he’s not the reason this play ends up dead — that’s on Denis Gurianov here to bring it back to the point, recognizing that EDM has the PP boxed out — but it still shows his lack of anything resembling an offensive read. Although in even more fairness, this is on Bowness and Derek Laxdal for putting on the PP to begin with, which should have never happened.

But more than just a player in decline, I think what we’re seeing are the bones of who he’s always been. The commonly-argued counterpoint is that Faksa’s decline coincided with post-Ruff hockey. Faksa was saddled too with increasingly anemic forwards: first Andrew Cogliano and Blake Comeau, then Michael Raffl and Luke Glendening. The problem with this argument is that it ignores whether Antoine Roussel and Ales Hemsky weren’t what buffered Faksa’s game to begin with (not to mention he shot 14 and 13 percent in two of those early seasons; a major luck spike for a career 9.8 percent shooter). More to the point, if Faksa’s value changed with the systems and his teammates, we would be able to isolate his effect on others. But in point of fact, all four of said teammates were better off without him.

Any Faksa analysis begins and ends with a first principles question: what is the primarily role of a forward? If you said “to score” you don’t get a cookie because frankly, I’m just glad you’re still here (…ok so maybe you do get a cookie). And I would predictably agree. But I would refine that to say ‘create offense’ which is slightly different.

There is active offense (goals and assists), and passive offense (shots, shot attempts, territory gained, penalties drawn, zone entries, etc). At the level of a top six forward, active offense is essential. Not only is there a baseline for active offense from a top six forward (1.5 points or more per hour at even strength, which Faksa has only broken twice in his career), but there is a strong correlation between increased forward production and increased scoring for the team. At the level of a bottom six forward, passive offense is more essential. With less minutes, and lesser teammates, a forward’s offense is defined more by the ripple effect they have on the team. Faksa has failed on both fronts for a long time now. And so we end up with this: a $3.5 million player who sinks the team’s offense so dramatically that only one percent of the NHL’s entire roster can even match it.

But Faksa’s game is about DFENS!

I see your Falling Down references and I don’t like it (you, not the movie). The reason why I’ve ignored defense is the same reason I’m less interested in offense from a bottom four defenseman — if you’re actively bad at your primary role, then you shouldn’t have that role. Imagine a graphic designer defending a crappy looking brochure by saying “but that line of copy on the back was really good!” and you get the picture.

You might be wondering ‘why pick on Faksa?’ Simple: it’s not about Faksa. Every team has a Faksa. Every team has a player who ‘Plays the Right Way’ which is just code for players that get to fail up. They work hard, and offer coaches the certainty of less risks, but they don’t make the team better. Depending on the minutes and the deployment, you could argue they make the team worse. Before Faksa it was Cody Eakin. After Eakin it was Devin Shore, who got more minutes than Jason Spezza. Why do you think Raffl played more EV minutes than Roope Hintz in the Calgary series?

That’s what worries me: as long as Faksa is on the roster, he’s a safe house for Pete DeBoer. Count me in as a fan of DeBoer. Don’t count me in as a fan of every decision just because. And don’t be surprised if Faksa’s role doesn’t diminish as long as he remains on the roster. Infections can be hard to spot, after all.