FYI
Here are the stats from the Concord WLU Game. I also compared WLU stats from the Frostburg game, showing relative percentage change from Frostburg. Negative percentage means decrease in performance (except for turnovers). In the Frostburg game, WLU was playing very high level basketball in terms of the WL brand of basketball.
I think the stats tell a fairly convincing story. As much respect as I have for the skills of the WLU players, these skills are not why they win 85% of their games over the last decade. It is the WL style of basketball that allows a team to average 1.26 points per possession for an entire season and lead the nation in scoring margin. It works because it is based on sound game theory for winning in the game of basketball.
When WLU players (who are truly gifted) see a clearly inferior player opposite them, it can be very tempting to listen to the sirens’ song of “He can’t guard me. I can score on him at any time.” If one succumbs to that melody, then WL becomes just another dribble drive team, like most of D1, with correspondingly lower points per possession that is consistent with that style. A good D1 team would be lucky to average 1.09 points per possession (excluding Gonzaga), which is a far cry from 1.26 generated by the WL style.
High points per possession depends on ball movement, player movement, offensive rebounding, forcing turnovers, avoiding committing turnover and exhausting the opponent, both mentally and physically, to carry the team during those nights when WL is shooting poorly and the opponent is playing at a high level.
If the players don't revert to the WL style, WV State has the talent to run them out of the gym in a dribble drive game.
To support these assertions, just look at the decline in key WL stats from Frostburg to Concord, such as:
Assist to Turnover ratio – down 74%
Assists per 100 Possessions – down by 69%
Turnovers per 100 possession – down by 18%
Offensive Rebound % of Missed Shots – down 27%
Here are the stats from the Concord WLU Game. I also compared WLU stats from the Frostburg game, showing relative percentage change from Frostburg. Negative percentage means decrease in performance (except for turnovers). In the Frostburg game, WLU was playing very high level basketball in terms of the WL brand of basketball.
I think the stats tell a fairly convincing story. As much respect as I have for the skills of the WLU players, these skills are not why they win 85% of their games over the last decade. It is the WL style of basketball that allows a team to average 1.26 points per possession for an entire season and lead the nation in scoring margin. It works because it is based on sound game theory for winning in the game of basketball.
When WLU players (who are truly gifted) see a clearly inferior player opposite them, it can be very tempting to listen to the sirens’ song of “He can’t guard me. I can score on him at any time.” If one succumbs to that melody, then WL becomes just another dribble drive team, like most of D1, with correspondingly lower points per possession that is consistent with that style. A good D1 team would be lucky to average 1.09 points per possession (excluding Gonzaga), which is a far cry from 1.26 generated by the WL style.
High points per possession depends on ball movement, player movement, offensive rebounding, forcing turnovers, avoiding committing turnover and exhausting the opponent, both mentally and physically, to carry the team during those nights when WL is shooting poorly and the opponent is playing at a high level.
If the players don't revert to the WL style, WV State has the talent to run them out of the gym in a dribble drive game.
To support these assertions, just look at the decline in key WL stats from Frostburg to Concord, such as:
Assist to Turnover ratio – down 74%
Assists per 100 Possessions – down by 69%
Turnovers per 100 possession – down by 18%
Offensive Rebound % of Missed Shots – down 27%
WEST Lib Stats | West Liberty | Concord | % change WLU stat from previous game (Frostburg) |
POINTS | 83 | 91 | -38.1% |
FGM | 28 | 29 | -37.8% |
FGA | 63 | 53 | -19.2% |
FGPCT | 44.4% | 54.7% | -23.0% |
3FGM | 5 | 7 | -64.3% |
3FGA | 23 | 18 | -28.1% |
3FGPCT | 21.7% | 38.9% | -50.3% |
FTM | 22 | 26 | -26.7% |
FTA | 27 | 34 | -18.2% |
FTPCT | 81.5% | 76.5% | -10.4% |
REBOUND OFFENSIVE | 10 | 11 | -23.1% |
REBOUND DEFENSIVE | 16 | 22 | -61.0% |
REBOUND TOTAL | 26 | 33 | -51.9% |
ASSISTS | 8 | 13 | -74.2% |
TURNOVERS | 17 | 22 | 0.0% |
BLOCKS | 1 | 2 | -66.7% |
STEALS | 10 | 5 | -23.1% |
Num Possessions | 82 | 79 | -15.5% |
Points per Possession | 1.01 | 1.15 | -26.7% |
Assists per 100 Possessions | 9.8 | 16.5 | -69.5% |
Turnovers per 100 Possessions (< better) |
20.7 | 27.8 | 18.3% |
Assist to Turnover Ratio | 0.47 | 0.59 | -74.2% |
Offensive Rebound % of Missed Shots | 28.6% | 45.8% | -27.5% |
Comment