West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Fairmont State 2/15/25 #10 WLU 81 #11 Fairmont 77

Fairmont State (FS) Game Plan

FS has talented, athletic 1-on-1 scorers. FS plays excellent defense. They have two ex-D1 players in ex-WVU Thweatt (r-jr. 6-7 225 lbs. 12.2 ppg, 22.5 mins), ex-UT Chattanooga Fitzgibbons (graduate 6-0 160 lbs., 11.3 ppg, 26.4 mins, 37% 3FG). Their best overall player is Jolinder (jr., 6-6 205 lbs., 17.2 ppg, 32.6 mins, 25% 3FG). Harris from Notre Dame College is a great 1-on-1 scorer at the rim (Sr. 6-4 195 lbs., 16.1ppg, 21.6% 3FG). Tommy Williams is a smart, glue player that plays with great effort (graduate 6-2 190 lbs. 8.4 ppg, 31.7 mins. 30.2% 3FG). The main 3FG threat is Emich (graduate 6-6 205 lbs. 8.3 ppg, 19.1 mins, 43.8% 3FG).
The FS strategy seemed to be: play deliberately, play aggressive half-court defense, attack WLU’s taller players, control the boards, and score efficiently, with the goal of offsetting any WLU advantage in turnovers.
• PASSED –Hold the score to the 70s or 80s by starting their offense with about 15 seconds remaining on shot clock. They held WLU to 29 points in the first half.
• PASSED - Attack the rim on offense, leveraging their height and athletic advantage with Harris, Jolinder and Thweatt. Look to kick out for the open three.
• PASSED – Mix up defenses to keep WLU off balance. Although typically man-to-man, use 2-3 and drop point zone. It will also allow time to rest players on defense.
• PASSED – Shoot at their average from three. They shot 9-25 or 36%, which is above their average of 33%. They were at their average FG%, shooting a very good 48%.
• PASSED– Use their height advantage to win the rebounding battle. They dominated the boards, especially in the first half. However, WLU improved in the second half, partially aided by FS fatigue. FS got 74% of defensive rebounds, while WLU was a poor 50% (the median D1 defensive rebounding is 72%).
• PASSED– Keep WLU off the offensive glass. FS garnered an outstanding 50% of potential offensive rebounds. WLU had a subpar 26%. The 90th percentile in D1 is 33%.
• FAILED – Try to get WLU taller players in foul trouble to get them out of the game. Harper had 4 fouls in 34 minutes, and Woodward 3 fouls in 25 minutes.
• FAILED– Draw fouls and get to the FT line. WLU was disciplined in not fouling when they were at a disadvantage at the rim. FS was 6-11 FTs (55%, far below their average of 76%, probably due to fatigue). WLU was 6-8 FTs (75%). FS committed 12 fouls and WLU 13 fouls. The officials allowed a very physical game.
• FAILED – Defend the 3-pt shot from WLU. In the first half, FS was exerting tremendous energy with great defensive pressure in the half court, and overplaying to limit the rapid WLU passing that often leads to open looks early in the shot clock. But fatigue slowed their close-outs in the second half.
• FAILED – Take care of the ball and avoid getting sped up in their game. FS had 24 turnovers, which led to 19 WLU points. WLU had a high (for them) 15 turnovers, partly due to the quick hands and overplaying defense of FS. In the second half, WLU scored 52 points, which was ahead of a 97 ppg pace.

Comments on the WLU victory

This was a tale of two halves. This was Alumni and Senior Recognition night at Fairmont. In the first half, FS was playing great defense and scoring both inside and outside. Thweatt and Harris were dominating inside and FS was dominating WLU on the offensive and defensive rebounds. WLU was generating 11 FS turnovers, but only had limited success in capitalizing on them. FS was expending tremendous amounts of energy on both offense and defense. FS led by 12, 41-29 at the half.
However, there were storm clouds on the horizon. Jolinder, Williams and Harris had played heavy minutes in the first half. In contrast, WLU subbed much more frequently, avoiding extended periods of play. Furthermore, there were few stoppages in play for foul shots by either team, which accelerated the onset of fatigue.

The question was: could FS continue to defend and attack with the same intensity in the second half?

The answer became apparent early in the second half. FS had lost a step on offense and defense. They were also making unforced turnovers, which is an indication of mental fatigue. In the first 5 minutes of the second half, WLU went on a 15-3 run to tie the game at 44-44. FS was no longer dominating the boards and their shooting % declined. The game seesawed back and forth until WLU took the lead for good at 58-57 with 8:32 remaining. By the 7:07 mark, WLU led 64-57. FS just did not have the energy of the first half and although WLU was not shooting great, they were getting second chance points and open looks. With 53 seconds, WLU led 74-73 when a WLU 3 pointer with 31 seconds turned the game into a FT contest. Four subsequent pressure WLU free throws sealed the victory at 81-77.

Keys to Victory

WLU showed tremendous heart and determination. WLU just keeps coming at you.
• Everyone was playing with great effort. They had 22 assists on 31 made goals, which is an amazing 71%. The 90th percentile for D1 is 59%. WLU had a subpar (for them) 1.47 assist to turnover ratio (due to 15 turnovers) compared to a horrendous 0.54 for FS. The 90th percentile for D1 is 1.48.
• WLU committed 15 turnovers on 20% of possessions (which is average, as typical D1 is 15 to 20%), while FS had 24 turnovers on 30% of possessions.
• WLU did a great job in refraining from fouling on dribble drives when the opponent had the advantage, even if they scored. This high basketball IQ play is critical in a close game to avoid and-ones and foul trouble.
• WLU filled their lanes in transition and played at a rapid pace in the second half, resulting in numbers in transition, which wore out FS. Consequently, FS made mental errors, their rebounding dominance decreased, and they missed open looks that they would normally make.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
• When a team switches to a zone, WLU needs to recognize and adjust a little faster in real time. It took them a couple of possessions to adjust.
• If WLU meets FS in the MEC tourney, they will need to slow down Harris and Thweatt, and avoid size mismatches inside on switches.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

Feb 19 2025 #8 West Liberty National Rankings out of 304 D2 team
s

Top Ten Ranking
#2 Assists per game 21.6 (WLU style teams are #1,2,3,15 and 68)
#2 Turnover Margin 8.2 (WLU style teams are #1,2,15, 18, and 22)
#3 Assist to Turnover Ratio 1.96 (WLU style teams are #1,3,16, 98, and 156)
#4 Scoring Offense 97.3 (WLU style teams are #1,2,4,5, and 8)
#5 Fast Break Points 20.13 (WLU style teams are #3,4,5,8, and 36)
#4 Three Pointers per game 11.1 (WLU style teams are #1,4,74, 82, and 265)
#5 Three Point Attempts per game 31.1 (WLU style teams are #1,5,71,103, and 277)
#7 Winning Percentage 87.5% (WLU style teams are #3,7,27, 43, and 107)

Ranking Ten Through 30 90th Percentile
#11 Scoring Margin 13 (WLU style teams are #1,11,15, 69, and 90)
#11 Turnovers Forced per game 19.22 (WLU style teams are #2,5,11, 13, and 21)
#13 Bench Points per game 35.04 (WLU style teams are #1,13,47,64, and 85 )
#26 Steals per game 9.8 (WLU style teams are #3,4,11,26, and 30)

Ranking 30 through 60 - 80th Percentile
#33 Effective FG Percentage 55.7% (WLU style teams are #6,8,33,118, and 144)
#33 Free Throws Made per game 16.5 (WLU style teams are #1,11,13,33, and 55)
#38 Turnovers per game 11.0 (WLU style teams are #37,38,188, 241, and 260)
#45 Field Goal Percentage 48.02% (WLU style teams are #3,30,45,50, and 123)
#54 Free Throw Attempts per game 22.0 (WLU style teams are #1,25,29,31, and 54)
#57 Free Throw Percentage 75.1% (WLU style teams are #26,40,57,94, and 215)

Other Rankings
#75 Rebounds Offensive per game 11.61 (WLU style teams are #4,9,17,50, and 75)
#76 Three Point Percentage Defense 32.5 (WLU style teams are #57,76,211,247, and 256)
#86 Three Point Percentage 35.61 (WLU style teams are #18,58,86, and 127)
#150 Rebounds Defensive per game 24.96 (WLU style teams are #4,8,149,150, and 252)

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Glenville State 2/19/25 #8 WLU 106 Glenville State 89

Glenville State (GS) Game Plan
GS has tall, athletic players with two elite three-point shooters. Team averages 35% 3FG. They have five ex-D1 players.

Key players are:
• Ex-Marshall Collins (Grad. 6-8, 16.1 ppg, 27.2 mins, 48% 3FG),
• Maxwell (Fr. 6-4 13.9 ppg, 32.2 mins 46 % 3FG)
• Ex-Akron Mosengo (r-So. 6-8, 9.6 ppg 26.7 mins, 36% 3FG)
• Kinsler (Sr. 6-2 11.0 ppg, 24.7 mins,34% 3FG)
• Colon Lewis (Fr. 6-6 10.8 ppg 19.3 mins 35% 3FG)
• Ex-Seattle Univ Penn (r-Sr., 6-2 5.4 ppg, 18.4 min, 32% 3FG)
• Ex-New Hampshire Gakmar (Sr. 6-7 5.0 ppg, 14.5 min)
• Ex-New Mexico State Blackwood (r-Sr. 6-3, 3.9 ppg,12.4 mins)

The GS strategy is a common formula: Attack WLU 1v1, either at the rim or from three; play aggressive half-court defense, control the boards, and score efficiently, with the goal of offsetting any WLU advantage in turnovers.

• PASSED - Attack the rim on offense, leveraging their height and athletic advantage. Look to kick out for the open three. They shot 58% FG and 43% 3FG in the first half.
• PASSED – Shoot at or above their average. They shot 50% FG, well above their average of 43.8%. They were just under their average of 35.6% 3FG, at 33% on 8-24.
• PASSED– Use their height advantage to win the rebounding battle. They dominated the boards, especially in the first half. However, WLU improved in the second half, but was bested 42-35 for the game. GS got 74% of defensive rebounds, while WLU was a decent 69% (the median D1 defensive rebounding is 72%).
• PASSED– Keep WLU off the offensive glass. GS garnered a good 31% of potential offensive rebounds. WLU had a subpar 26%. The 90th percentile in D1 is 33%.
• PASSED – Try to get WLU players in foul trouble. The officials were calling a tight game related to WLU’s pressure defense. Shuler, Harper and Dragas all had 4 fouls
• FAILED–Hold the score near their average pf 81 points per game. In the second half, WLU scored 62 points, which was ahead of their average 97 ppg pace.
• FAILED – Defend the 3-pt shot from WLU. WLU made 18-43 (42%).
• FAILED– Take care of the ball and avoid getting sped up in their game. GS had 15 turnovers, which is their average. However over 50% were steals, and the turnovers led to 29 WLU points. WLU had a miniscule 4 turnovers.

Comments on the WLU victory
This was a tale of two halves. WLU jumped out to an 8-0 lead, forcing a GS timeout. However, WLU became stagnant offensively and GS was very effective in the post. In ten minutes, GS stormed back from a 10-point deficit at 14:39 to take a 6-point lead with 4:39 remaining in the first half. GS shot 58% FG and 43% 3FG in the first half, resulting in a three-point lead at the half.

In the second half, WLU was generating turnovers due to their incredible pressure and shot over 40% from three. WLU was called for numerous fouls in a tightly officiated game, but GS often made just 1 FT, while WLU was making threes. WLU was scoring 3 points to 1 for GS.

Keys to Victory
WLU showed tremendous heart and determination. The cumulative effect of pressure in the second half affects the opponent in many areas of play.
• Everyone was playing with great effort. They had 24 assists on 33 made goals, which is an amazing 73%. The 90th percentile for D1 is 59%. WLU had an amazing 6.00 assist to turnover ratio compared to a mundane 1.00 for GS. The 90th percentile for D1 is 1.48.
• WLU committed an incredibly low 4 turnovers on 5% of possessions (typical D1 is 15 to 20%), while GS had 15 turnovers on 19% of possessions.
• WLU moved Woodward to the point guard position to bring the GS big man away from the basket, which opened the lane for more interior passes and also reduced GS rebounding effectiveness.
• WLU filled their lanes in transition and played at a rapid pace in the second half, resulting in numbers in transition, which wore out GS, even though GS was trying to sub frequently. Consequently, GS made mental errors, their rebounding dominance decreased, and they missed open looks that they would normally make.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
• WLU had issues with the inside size of GS. WLU guards will need to sag on the opponent's forwards to force opponents to pick up dribble in the low post without giving up an open three.

• WLU needs to avoid scoreless stretches and defensive lapses in the 1st half that allows opponent back in the game.

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Concord 2/22/25
#8 WLU 102 – Concord 85

Concord (CU) Game Plan
CU comes into the game with a veteran team with height, speed, and 3 players averaging double figures. On a nine-game winning streak, they have defeated both Fairmont and WLU and are on the cusp of a regional tourney bid.They are #14 in rebounding, having 3 strong inside players at 6-8. They shoot 37.6% 3FG and 47.7% FG, which are both excellent. They have two excellent guards in Tolbert (21 ppg) and Boston (16 ppg). Combine that with their emphasis on strong rebounding and a couple of strong inside players (e.g., Diop 6-8 232 lbs. 9.2 ppg) in the paint, and they have the right combination of players and the coach to pose a matchup problem for WLU.

Concord averages about 12 assists and nearly 15 turnovers per game, so they could be vulnerable to WLU pressure.

The CU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED –Use their athletic ability to attack the rim on offense. Look for opportunities to pass to their big men when it is available so that they can leverage their size advantage to score or get to the foul line.
• PASSED – Mitigate the effects of fatigue. CU played 8 players 12 minutes or more. They also want to play deliberately in the half court, often not aggressively starting their play until there were less than 16 seconds left on the shot clock.
• PASSED – Draw fouls and get to the Free-Throw line. CU caused 24 WLU fouls and shot 66% (19-29) foul shots. CU was whistled for only 14 fouls, resulting in 13-16 (81%) free-throws for WLU, above their season average of 75%. If WLU was shooting subpar, this could spell trouble.
• PASSED– Win the rebounding battle. CU outrebounded WLU 46 to 37, but both teams were subpar. The college average is a 72% defensive rebounding rate. CU got 64%, and WLU only got 54% of defensive rebounds. Since CU was taking the ball inside, their superior height got them second chance shots, which lowered the WLU defensive rebounding %.
• PASSED – Keep WLU off the offensive glass. The average offensive rebounding % in college basketball is 28%. WLU was an excellent 36% potential offensive rebounds compared to an outstanding 46% for CU.
• FAILED (Marginally)– Shoot at their average from three. CU shot 34.8% from three, below their average of 37.6%. They shot 46% FG, just below their average of 47.7%
• FAILED – Take care of the ball and avoid getting sped up in their game. CU had 22 turnovers, of which 14 were steals, leading to 31 WLU points. WLU had an outstanding 1.41 points per forced turnover, whereas CU scored 1.13 points per forced turnover.
• FAILED– Try to get Harper and Woodward for WLU in foul trouble by attacking them. WLU mitigated this risk by distributing more minutes among all the big men on the roster as well as having the guards sag to make the CU big man pick up the dribble. Tinsley did foul out and Dragas finished with 4 fouls, as they continue to adjust to the defensive aspects of the game at this level.
• FAILED – Defend the 3-point shot from WLU. WLU averaged 37.8% (11-29) for the game, above their average of 35.6%. Many of these were daggers, where CU was making 1 foul shot, followed by a deep three from WLU.

Comments on the WLU Victory

WLU continued its initial personnel from recent games.

Shift 1: Harper, Woodward, Spadafora, D’Augustino and Dragas

However, being a WLU starter has none of the cachet of traditional teams. Nine players played 15 or more minutes, with one player getting 31 minutes and the remainder 27 minutes or less.

WLU is using somewhat shorter rotations, with 3 replacements after 2-3 minutes and the remaining two swap out after no more than 4 minutes.
WLU did a great job of subbing, either based on time or by observation of an individual’s play. As a result, they are playing with the same intensity throughout the game (at least until the outcome is no longer in doubt).

Keys to Victory

• WLU was playing at a very high level, with an incredible offensive rating of 126 points per 100 possessions(comparable to the average of the great past WLU teams), compared to 106 for CU. The 90th percentile for D1 is 113. The WLU stat would have been even higher but CU made 9 impressive blocks at the rim, often from behind.
• The typical D1 turnover rate is 15% to 20% of possessions and the 90th percentile for D1 is 10.4 turnovers per game. WLU only committed 8 turnovers on 10% of possessions. CU had 22 turnovers on 28% of possessions.
• WLU got 14 steals (60% of the CU turnovers) that led to easy scores. WLU scored 1.41 points per turnover, compared to 1.13 points for CU.
• WLU has a plethora of 3-point shooters who, on a given night, can shoot high percentages from far behind the 3-point line. On this night, it was Dragas (4-5, 80%), Clanet (3-6 50%), Tinsley (1-1, 100%). On other nights, it has been Spadafora and Autrey. This spreads the defense and allows driving lanes around the rim.
• WLU did a much better job of having a guard sag to make the CU big men pick up their dribble on passes to the low post. CU was unable to exploit the unguarded player in the corner. As soon as the big man picked up the dribble, the WLU guard hustled back to guard the corner three.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
Overall, this was a great team effort and it is hard to find major issues. This team is coming together.

• One area is to improve situational awareness at the rim. CU had 9 blocks. For example, CU is loaded with shot blockers. On a breakaway, we were more concerned with getting our steps in preparation for a dunk instead to going full speed for a layup. As a result, CU caught up and cleanly blocked the shot from behind.
• A second area is for individuals to be aware of their accumulated fouls and avoid fouling on dribble drives when the opponent has WLU on his hip (they have leverage), and when it can get WLU player in foul trouble.
• At least 3 of our 8 turnovers were avoidable, unnecessary offensive fouls.

[Columbuseer]

Fyi
wlu moves up to #6 in d2.
article in www.hilltoppersports.com
nova se is #2

[Columbuseer]

Amazing run of success! Incredible job this year with 9 new players!

With their latest win, West Liberty has now claimed at least a share of its eighth consecutive MEC regular-season championship. The Hilltoppers have won 11 of the 12 MEC titles since the conference was formed and 15 of the last 16 dating back to their time in the WVIAC.

[Scrub]

Amazing run of success! Incredible job this year with 9 new players!

With their latest win, West Liberty has now claimed at least a share of its eighth consecutive MEC regular-season championship. The Hilltoppers have won 11 of the 12 MEC titles since the conference was formed and 15 of the last 16 dating back to their time in the WVIAC.

I'm too lazy to look it up. Do you recall which was the year WLU didn't win the conference? Was it the Will Voorhees Notre Dame team? Or was that a case of WLU winning the league title but losing the conf. tourney? Or was it one of those good Fairmont teams with Isaiah Sanders (what a thorn that guy was in the side of WLU for 5 years)?

[Layton]

Scoring 106 points and losing by 56 is insane work

[Columbuseer]

Formula for a victory

• FT % - 86%
• FG% 56%
• 3FG% 38%
• 2FG% 65%
• Lose rebounds barely 34-32
• offensive rating of 111 - 90th percentile in d1 is 113
• Score 106 points

Except when you are playing WLU when every player is on their game.

History was made at the ASRC with following all-time records

• Most points scored - 162
• Most Assists - 44

The box score stats are amazing!
https://hilltoppersports.com/news/20...ver-salem.aspx


Every player who played got in double figures. Five players shot over 50% from three, led by Dragas who was 7-8.
WLU was 27-42 from three.
Only 8 turnovers and forced 25 turnovers.
Fans were in shock at the firepower.
And Dante Spadafora did not play as he was banged up!

This is the highest offensive rating I have ever seen at WLU for a game at 171 points per 100 possessions

[boatcapt]

Make no mistake, 162 points against any team is a big deal, but I would point out that it was against a bad Salem team!

Took a while but WLU finally seems to be rounding into shape. And at the perfect time! One game left in the regular season and then into the tournament season were it truely matters. I'm increasingly optimistic about our post season odds but I'm still wary remembering how bad WLU looked at various points during the season.

All that said, I'm optimistic that if we continue to play like we have during the last several games, we might be setting up for a Championship run!

[Columbuseer]

Salem has a couple of strong 1v1 players but little depth. In a half-court style they have the potential to cause problems. In the previous game they lost to Fairmont by 5. They really need to work on team defense.
Salem chose to match the pace of wlu. With little depth, fatigue took its toll at around the 12-minute mark of the first half, which was their demise.
I suppose Glenville is relieved that they no longer hold the record, as wlu scored 158 against them in 2018.

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU hosting Salem 2/26/25

#6 WLU 162 – Salem 106

Salem (SU) Game Plan
SU has a disappointing record, but they enter the game with a five-point loss to Fairmont State. They have great 1v1 players and good athletes, but they are still trying to jell as a team. They shoot 34% 3FG, 45% FG, and 75% FT.
Salem averages about 12 assists and 14 turnovers per game, so they could be vulnerable to WLU pressure.
Salem’s starters typically play heavy minutes, so their lack of subs could be a factor in a fast-paced transition game.

The SU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED –Use their athletic ability of their starters to attack WLU in transition and either score or get a foul.
• PASSED – Draw fouls and get to the Free-Throw line. SU caused 21 WLU fouls and shot 86% (19-22) foul shots. In comparison, SU was whistled for only 17 fouls, but it resulted in 22-29 (78%) free-throws for WLU.
• PASSED - Shoot at their average from three. SU shot 38% from three, above their average of 34%. They shot 56% FG, far above their average of 45%.
• FAILED – Keep WLU off the offensive glass. The average offensive rebounding % in college basketball is 28%. WLU was an excellent 35% potential offensive rebounds, which is above the 90th percentile for D1 at 33.7%. SU was 31%.
• FAILED– Win the rebounding battle. WLU outrebounded SU 34-32, but both teams were average. The college average is a 72% defensive rebounding rate. SU got 65%, and WLU got 69% of defensive rebounds.
• FAILED – Take care of the ball and avoid getting sped up in their game. SU had 25 turnovers, of which 17 were steals, leading to 47 WLU points. WLU had an incredible 1.88 points per forced turnover, whereas SU scored 1.0 points per forced turnover.
• FAILED – Defend the 3-point shot from WLU. WLU averaged an outstanding 57.4% (27-47) for the game, far above their average of 37%.

Comments on the WLU Victory

Since Dante Spadafora was banged up, WLU adjusted:

• Shift 1: Harper, Woodward, Autrey, D’Augustino and Dragas

However, being a WLU starter has none of the cachet of traditional teams. Every player played 17 minutes or more minutes, with only one player playing 27 minutes.

Most coaches would like their chances if their team had the following stats.

• FT % - 86%
• FG% 56%
• 3FG% 38%
• 2FG% 65%
• Barely Lose rebound battle at 34-32
• offensive rating of 111 - 90th percentile in d1 is 113
• Score 106 points

However, these stats are misleading. The mistake SU made was to run with WLU, turning the game into an open gym game, especially with the limited depth of Salem. SU played their starters far too long without a break. WLU was rotating the ball rapidly on offense, making Salem work very hard on defense, in addition to struggling against WLU pressure.

Leading 19-18 at the 12:28 minute mark of the first half, SU was showing signs of collapsing, even though WLU was experiencing some tough misses on shots. SU’s players seemed to be wearing concrete boots on defense. In 124 seconds, WLU went on a 14-2 run to take a 32-21 lead.By the 6:17 mark the lead was 20 at 51-21. As the clock wound under a minute in the first half, WLU led by 31 at 72-41.
At the beginning of the second half, Salem was in a quandary:

• play more deliberately and definitely lose,
• or continue to play fast and somehow hope to channel the skills of a young Archie Talley to close the margin. (https://salemtigers.com/honors/salem...chie-talley/46)

SU chose to continue to play fast. They chose… poorly. Salem was exhausted at the end of the first half. A 15-minute intermission is insufficient time to fully recover. WLU scored 88 points in the second half. However, Salem did not give up, continuing to attack and to score. Unfortunately for them, WLU was effectively playing 5-on-2.

WLU set all-time records in scoring (162 points) and assists (44).

Keys to Victory

• WLU had an incredible 95 possessions. 90th percentile for D1 is 75. It was aided by both teams playing uptempo. As SU became exhausted, WLU was getting wide open practice shots early in the shot clock.
• WLU was playing at a very high level, with an incredible offensive rating of 171 points per 100 possessions,compared to a good 111 for SU. The 90th percentile for D1 is 113.
• The typical D1 turnover rate is 15% to 20% of possessions and the 90th percentile for D1 is 10.4 turnovers per game. WLU only committed 8 turnovers on 8% of possessions. SU had 25 turnovers on 26% of possessions.
• WLU got 17 steals (68% of the SU turnovers) that led to easy scores. WLU scored 1.88 points per turnover, compared to 1.00 points for SU.
• WLU has a plethora of 3-point shooters who, on a given night, can shoot high percentages from far behind the 3-point line. On this night, it was Kisner (1-1 100%), Dragas (7-9, 88%), D’Augustino (4-5 80%), Autrey (6-11 54%), Tinsley (2-4 50%), Clanet (4-9 44%), and Harper (2-5 40%). This opened up inside scoring lanes for Shuler (63% FG) and Woodward (54% FG). All 9 WLU players hit double figures in scoring.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
Overall, this was a great team effort and it is hard to find major issues. This team is coming together at the perfect time. Early in the game, WLU was not locking down on their opponent in transition, leading to some easy scores. Also, WLU needs to stay locked in on defense in the 2nd half, even though the opponent is exhausted and the opponent has discarded any semblance of a team offense.

[Topper_Hopper]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU hosting Salem 2/26/25

#6 WLU 162 – Salem 106

WLU has a plethora of 3-point shooters who, on a given night, can shoot high percentages from far behind the 3-point line. On this night, it was Kisner (1-1 100%), Dragas (7-9, 88%), D’Augustino (4-5 80%), Autrey (6-11 54%), Tinsley (2-4 50%), Clanet (4-9 44%), and Harper (2-5 40%). This opened up inside scoring lanes for Shuler (63% FG) and Woodward (54% FG). All 9 WLU players hit double figures in scoring.

27 made threes must have been close to a school record?

[Layton]

Let’s get that women’s coaching search going

[Columbuseer]

27 made threes must have been close to a school record?

They made 30 threes at urbana on 1/25/13. Not sure of record.