West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Some observations on Wheeling game.
I originally thought that foul shooting was the deciding factor. Then I realized that I was experiencing recency bias. Wheeling only made 5 more three throws than WLU.

Typically, much of the margin of victory for WLU is points off turnovers. In this game, points off turnovers were 19-12 in favor of wheeling. Turnovers were tied at 12, much less than typical opponent turnovers.

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Wheeling 2/28/26 WLU 91 - WU 93

Wheeling Univ. (WU) Preview
Wheeling University has around 1,100 undergrad and grad students. They are 11-5 and 6-3 in the MEC. They are a dangerous 3-pt. shooting team; #23, #12, and #2 all shoot over 40% from three. Also, starters #1 and #10 shoot over 35% from three. Three players average double figures, led by #1 (18.1), #10 (15.9), #4 (14.4), #13 (9), and #23 (8). They average about 11.5 turnovers and create about 8.7 steals per game. They typically are not a dominating rebounding team. Only seven players play over 14 minutes a game. #1 and #5 play over 30 minutes a game.
If they shoot much better than WLU, they could give WLU trouble. The key is for WLU to wear them out with pressure and generate turnovers.

WU Game Plan
The WU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED– Limit the turnover margin. WU had an excellent 12 turnovers, while forcing WLU to 12 turnovers with quick hands and by overplaying the passing lanes. Seven of the 12 forced turnovers were steals. It is very rare that a WLU opponent ties or wins the turnover margin. WU won the points off turnovers 19-12. IMHO, this was the key to the WU victory. WU had a great defensive plan.
• PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their athletic players and kick out to their 3-point shooters. The accepted vulnerability of the WLU trapping defense is an open look shot from the corner in transition. WU was shooting and making threes from the corner.
• PASSED– Win the rebounding battle, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. WU won the offensive rebounding battle 11-8, and outrebounded WLU overall 34-29.
• PASSED– Shoot near their average. WU shot well above their average in all categories.

Wheeling Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	45.6%	54.7%
3FG%	33.6%	41.7%
FT%	73.0%	81.3%
Made 3s per game	10	10

• PASSED – Limit WU fatigue. WU had excellent physical conditioning. They had few turnovers, even after playing two players 35 minutes, and three players playing 29, 27, and 25 minutes respectively. They started to ran out of gas midway through the second half, but they hit key shots and avoided turnovers, while still playing good defense.

Keys to the WLU Game
This was a very high-level basketball game, with both teams were performing at the 90^th percentile D1 level in many categories. The offensive rating for WU was 129, while WLU was 126 (D1 90^th percentile is 113). WLU shot exceptionally well from 2FG at 61.1% and 3FG at 50%. WU shot 62.5% 2FG and 41.7% 3FG. WLU shot 57.1% FT (season average is 75%), while WU shot 81.3% FT (season average is 73%). However, WU only made 5 more FT than WLU, so it was not the key to the WLU loss.
Key factors were:

• Like the first game, WU did not commit excessive turnovers, which were tied at 12. WU actually scored more points off turnovers at 19-12.
• Tee Harris #4 as 16-23 (70%, while season average as 50%) and 2-5 from three (season average 30%). He is a 14.4 point per game scorer who had a career night of 35 points. WLU could not defend him in transition.
• IMHO, the WLU offense got stagnant in the last 10 minutes of the game and was not getting assists inside on back-door cuts or easy shots.
• Couple the above factors in with some missed shots inside by WLU and you have the ingredients for an upset by a good team.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU is still tending to make lazy, casual passes out front or in the backcourt. Both WLU players need to recognize that the defender is waiting to sprint in front of their teammate to intercept the pass.
• Like most losses, there are learning opportunities that can pay dividends in the future. WLU will encounter other mobile, athletic big men like Harris in the future, so limiting their effectiveness will be crucial.

[Scrub]

This post isn't necessarily apropos of yesterday's game. Yesterday's game was what it was. There really wasn't anything on the line except for pride in beating your rival (and that's nothing to sneeze at, for sure). But the Regional was gonna go through Erie regardless. The conference championship and top seed in the MEC tourney was already sewn up. Make better than 50% of your free throws and maybe the result is different, but it was what it was.

That aside, this post is sparked by something an IUP poster said on the IUP thread coupled with something Boat had been saying 3 months ago. If you recall, Boat asked at the beginning of the season what was going to be different about this Coker roster wearing black and gold instead of blue and gold? This was, for all intents and purposes, the very same team that went 19-10 in Conference Carolinas last year. Boat asked why we thought the results would be different in a Hilltopper jersey. But perhaps to Boat's surprise, it was different. It's a team that went 24-4 in the MEC with virtually the same roster that went 19-10 last year. So what happened?

I'm wondering about two possibilities (one that's complimentary and one that it's a little more worrisome):

1. Possibility #1 is that the ASRC is a legit, measurable home court advantage. Coker went only 7-5 at home last year playing in their empty gym. West Liberty went 14-0 this year playing in front of 1000 people every night at the ASRC. Maybe that actually makes a difference. There are very few atmospheres in the MEC that feel like a rocking ASRC. So perhaps Boat's question failed to account for the legitimacy of the ASRC home court advantage (which meant a +7 win difference in the home record). That's a fun possibility to think about: ASRC as "sixth man."

2. But the more worrisome possibility is the thought that was prompted by the IUP poster. IUPalum was lamenting what he called the lack of "killers" on the IUP team. Too many nice guys; not enough stone cold "killers" (figuratively speaking) that resulted in IUP getting bullied by Gannon and Cal this week. Like IUP, WLU has always prided itself on having a roster full of said "killers." Nobody was as stone cold as Dalton Bolon. That guy genuinely HATED to lose. That was the WLU way for a long time. Quality humans for sure (like the current Dr. Alex Falk, Dr. CJ Hester, etc.), but also "killers" 'between the black lines.

But if you look at this year's roster and had to rank the "killers" in order of intensity, the order probably looks something like:

Myles Montgomery
Dante Spadafora
Cam Williams
Then maybe you get down to an Aidan Davis or Landon Butler.

But are you noticing a pattern? Montgomery, Spadafora, Williams, & Davis were all Howlett's recruits (and Howlett definitely spent some time working on the Butler family too). Howlett was the Chief Killer for sure (that dude never smiled once when talking basketball), and as a result he consistently recruited "killers." The Coker fellas seem like really nice dudes, but they also don't seem to have a lot of "killer" in them. Hayden Abdullah seems like a really nice kid that would be pleasant to have lunch with, but he isn't scaring anyone. Could that be what accounts for a +7 win difference? Pair Coker's talent for scoring last year with Howlett's stone cold "killers" and that's how you get 7 more wins?

This explanation for how Coker's roster outperformed themselves once they changed jerseys is the more worrisome explanation of the two because this is obviously the last year WLU gets to reap the benefits of a Howlett recruiting class (in fact, WLU will now have to recruit against Howlett for the same types of guys). And let's not even get into the portal mess that will have us all wondering which guys we get to keep in a few weeks. (Please stay, Cam, we need you.)

It's true that Lamberti himself was a really intense dude when he played (he was the dude in the middle of the pre-game huddle firing everyone up when he was on the team--the role currently filled by Myles Montgomery), so we can only hope that he'll have just as much eye for recruiting "killers" as Howlett did.

[Scrub]

Gotta make your free throws. That is all.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
For those interested in data analytics…
D1 90^th percentile stats used for quantitative measures for comparison because D2 stats are not readily available.
Red cells are 20% below median D1 stat ; green cells are >= 90 Percentile

WLU at Salem 2/25/26 game 27
Statistic	Salem	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	33	42	33.2	897	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	65	77	65.0	1756	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	22	17.9	483	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	22	26	23.9	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	6	15	9.7	263	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	23	35	27.9	752	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	7	11	10.8	291	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	28	29	23.9	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	35	40	34.7	936	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	16	17	18.1	490
Assists	14	25	17.3	467	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	23	15	11.5	311	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	1	0	2.1	58	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	7	15	11.1	301	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	15	23	18.4	496	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	22	29			N/A
Points in the Paint	52	50			N/A
Second Chance Points	8	12			N/A
Fast Break Points	26	20			N/A
Bench Points	34	57			N/A
Points	87	122	99.6	2690	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	26	27	27.0	27
Number of Possessions	91	92	76.3	2060	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.96	1.32	1.3	1.31	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.82	0.957	1.0	0.990	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	96	132	130.6	131	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	55.4%	64.3%	0.6	59%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	58.2%	69.0%	0.7	66%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	68.2%	84.6%	0.7	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	50.8%	54.5%	0.5	51%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	26.1%	42.9%	0.3	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	64.3%	64.3%	0.6	63%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	23	15	11.5	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-8	8	19.6	6.9	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	25.4%	16.2%	0.2	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	46.7%	65.2%	0.6	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.47	1.26	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	42.4%	59.5%	0.5	52%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.61	1.67	1.5	1.50	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	71.8%	80.6%	0.7	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	19.4%	28.2%	0.3	30%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-35	35	17.5	-473	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Observations on Salem Game 2/25/26

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Salem University 2/25/26 WLU 121 - Salem 87

Salem (SU) Preview
SU is a well-coached team with excellent, athletic, 1-on-1 players who are good scorers and who are comfortable in aggressively attacking the basket. They make only 6 3FG per game and average around 32% 3FG.
Their two highest scorers are #1 Fallen at 19.5 ppg and 32 minutes per game, 6-7 #14 Lamal at 17.7 ppg and 35 min per game, 5-10. #2 Gamble at 15 ppg, and 30 minutes per game and #5 Price at 12 ppg and 17 minutes per game. They are more of a dribble drive team, averaging only 10.4 assists. They come into the game at 8-17. They are strong in 1-on-1 defense. They are vulnerable to fatigue because only 8 players play more than 15 minutes and they average 16 turnovers per game.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/johns/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.png[/IMG]


[IMG]file:///C:/Users/johns/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.png[/IMG]


Salem (SU) Game Plan
SU was playing without their leading scorer Fallen, at 19.5 ppg.
The SU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Shoot above their average.

Salem Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	43.7%	50.8%
3FG%	31.8%	26.1%
FT%	69.6%	68.2%

• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU on the dribble drive with their quick guards and talented forwards.
• PASSED –In a departure from their first meeting, when SU broke the press, their strategy was to attack the rim in transition.
• FAILED – Play tight half-court defense. They intercepted some lazy WLU passes in the half-court, but fatigue ultimately caused SU to get a step slow on their defense, giving up both back-door layups or wide-open threes.
• FAILED – Limit turnovers. SU had 23 turnovers, leading to 29 WLU points.
• FAILED – Keep the WLU score under 80 as Salem only averages 77 ppg. IMHO, they were fortunate that WLU only scored 122.
• FAILED – Dominate the boards. WLU won the rebounding battle 40-35. WLU got 81% of defensive rebounds (D1 90^th percentile is 76%)
• FAILED – Avoid playing starters heavy minutes. They played only 6 players over 9 minutes, with two players playing 36 ad 31 minutes, respectively. IMHO, SU played their starters two long without subbing, which hindered their recovery from fatigue. For example, in the first half, Salem had 10 instances of players playing more than 5.5 minutes without a break. WLU had one (Myles Montgomery, who has tremendous endurance, likely because he was also a great high school soccer player).

Keys to the WLU Game
From the opening tip, it was apparent that WLU was playing with greater efficiency in all phases of the game on offense, defense, rebounding, and their press. WLU’s offensive rating was an amazing 132 (pts per 100 possessions) compared to a mediocre 96 for SU (D1 90^th percentile is 113). WLU’s true shooting % was 69% to an excellent 58% for SU, for SU score frequently in the paint (D1 90^th percentile is 58.9%).
WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently in an effort to tire out SU. This strategy became effective in the last 10 minutes of the half and throughout the second half.

• IMHO, the difference in the game was West Liberty’s pressure, which wore out SU. SU started playing YMCA pickup ball, taking shots with no one even attempting to crash the boards, allowing WLU to control the rebounds and limiting second shots.
• WLU forced 23 turnovers on 25% of SU’s possessions, of which 65% were live ball turnovers on 15 steals.
• WLU shared the ball well. WLU had 59.5% of goals from assists to only 42.4% for SU (90^th percentile for D1 is 59.8%). WLU had a versatile combination of threes, slashing drives to the rim, and jump shots in their offense. Several times WLU had a good shot, but it was passed for an even better shot, which was subsequently passed again for a great shot. Impressive.
• WLU shot an elite 42.9% from three for the game. Ten players made threes. Seven players shot 50% or greater from three.
• WLU had elite foul shooting, at 84.6% on 22-26.
• It is becoming apparent that WLU has quality depth. WLU played many different combinations of lineups, with no apparent drop-off in production.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU needs to avoid soft, lazy passes, which occurred during even routine passes at the top of the half-court offense. Some SU players were breaking on the ball and intercepting it, because it was telegraphed and slow, leading to breakaway dunks by SU.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
For those hordes of members of this board who are interested in data analytics… :-)
D1 90^th percentile stats used for quantitative measures for comparison because D2 stats are not readily available.
Red cells are 20% below median D1 stat ; green cells are >= 90 Percentile

WLU vs Concord 2/21/26 game 26
Statistic	Concord	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	31	40	857	897	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	69	77	1756	1756	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	18	483	483	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	22	20	645	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	5	11	263	263	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	20	32	752	752	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	15	8	291	291	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	21	23	645	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	36	31	936	936	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	18	17	490	490
Assists	15	19	467	467	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	24	12	311	311	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	6	2	58	58	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	7	13	301	301	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	12	24	496	496	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	11	44			N/A
Points in the Paint	50	56			N/A
Second Chance Points	22	17			N/A
Fast Break Points	6	39			N/A
Bench Points	36	49			N/A
Points	82	109	2460	2460	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	26	26	26	26
Number of Possessions	88	90	79	2060	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.94	1.21	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.90	0.955	0.990	0.990	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	94	121	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	48.6%	59.1%	59%	59%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	52.1%	63.5%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	68.2%	90.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	44.9%	51.9%	51%	51%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	25.0%	34.4%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	53.1%	64.4%	63%	63%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	24	12	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-12	12	20	7.1	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	27.4%	13.4%	393%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	58.3%	54.2%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.92	1.83	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	48.4%	47.5%	52%	52%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.63	1.58	1.50	1.50	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	72.4%	60.5%	70%	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	39.5%	27.6%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-27	27	13	-330	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Concord Univ (CU) 2/21/26


Concord Univ. Preview – 2/21/26
CU has about 1,800 students. Concord is a talented team that has the size, length, shooting and quickness to play with the style of any D2 team. #5 and #25 are both 6-8, #4 is 6—6, and their guards are often over 6 ft. Unfortunately, their 6-8 star player and leading scorer, #33, is injured and is out for the year, which has resulting in many losses. They are dominant inside. Their bench goes 8 deep.
WLU must shoot well, limit the CU rebounding advantage, and tire out their athletic players to limit their minutes and/or effectiveness. WLU must avoid foul trouble; else there will be serious matchup issues.

CU Game Plan
CU has been missing #33, their 6-8 leading scorer and 3-pt shooter. The CU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their talented tall, athletic athletes. When a size mismatch occurs on a WLU switch, get the ball inside to their teammate.
• PASSED –Dominate the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. CU won offensive rebounds 15-8, and got 22 second chance points to 17 for WLU. CU had 36 rebounds to 31 for WLU.
• FAILED – Shoot above their average. CU shot significantly worse than their average in FT% and 3FG%.

Concord Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	44.4%	44.9%
3FG%	33.3%	25%
FT%	77.4%	68.2%

• FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. CU had 24 turnovers (13 season avg.) while forcing only 12 WLU turnovers. WLU had 13 steals and scored 44 points off turnovers.

Keys to the WLU Game
MEC teams are following a similar blueprint to challenge WLU. Tall, athletic teams with good 1-on-1 skills, strong guards, and several elite three-point shooters. Concord started two 6-8 and one 6-6 agile, tall players.
WLU had a “shock and awe” blackout, where CU was totally unprepared for the pressure at the beginning of the game, committing turnovers in rapid succession. At the 15-minute mark, WLU was on pace to score 152 points for the game.
To their credit, CU closed the gap to 4 points, due to:

• Outstanding defensive plays and blocked shots
• Getting alley oops while attacking in transition
• Timely shooting
• Some missed shots by WLU early in the shot clock with little rebounding presence

CU was running with WLU and attacking the rim in transition, which was sowing the seeds of fatigue. At the 2:32 mark, WLU led by 6. By the end of the first half, WLU led by 15 at 56-41.
In the second half, WLU started attacking the rim inside, as the CU players were getting a step slow. CU was running plays and making difficult shots after expending much effort and time. WLU would reply with a quick layup on a back-door cut against the overplaying CU defense. The lead varied from 16 to 20 points for much of the half, until a final spurt led to the 109-82 final score.
WLU had an elite offensive rating of 121, compared to 94 for CU (90^th percentile D1 is 113). WLU had an elite 63.5% true shooting percentage compared to 52.1% for CU (90^th percentile for D1 is 58.9%). WLU forced 24 turnovers (15 in the first half), while committing just 12 turnovers (90^th percentile D1 is 10.4). WLU forced turnovers on 22% of CU possessions, WLU had a 1.58 assist-to-turnover ratio to 0.63 for CU (90^th percentile for D1 is 1.487)

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Improve awareness of opponents on breakaways by WLU. On occasion, WLU had the ball stripped or blocked from behind, just before attempting a layup.
• WLU could benefit from cradling the ball better on inside drives, where opponents have to slap an arm to get a deflection.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Myles Montgomery named MEC player of week last week.
https://hilltoppersports.com/news/20...spx?print=true

[Columbuseer]

FYI
For those interested in data analytics…
D1 90^th percentile stats used for quantitative measures for comparison because D2 stats are not readily available.
Red cells are 20% below median D1 stat ; green cells are >= 90 Percentile

WLU at Glenville 2/18/26 game 25
Statistic	Glenville	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	28	31	857	826	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	74	64	1756	1692	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	24	483	459	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	21	30	645	615	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	9	9	263	254	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	27	25	752	727	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	9	9	291	282	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	22	34	645	611	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	31	43	936	893	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	24	21	490	469
Assists	15	12	467	455	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	15	17	311	294	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	7	2	58	56	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	9	7	301	294	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	17	15	496	481	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	23	24			N/A
Points in the Paint	36	42			N/A
Second Chance Points	10	17			N/A
Fast Break Points	2	4			N/A
Bench Points	20	44			N/A
Points	80	95	2460	2365	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	25	25	25	25
Number of Possessions	89	85	79	1975	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.90	1.12	1.20	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.93	0.906	0.994	0.994	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	90	112	120	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	43.9%	55.5%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	48.1%	61.5%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	71.4%	80.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	37.8%	48.4%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	33.3%	36.0%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	40.4%	56.4%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	15	17	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	2	-2	19	7.5	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	16.8%	20.0%	394%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	52.9%	46.7%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.35	1.60	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	53.6%	38.7%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.00	0.71	1.55	1.55	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	71.0%	79.1%	70%	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	20.9%	29.0%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-15	15	13	-317	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Glenville State (GS) 2/18/26

Glenville State Preview – 2/18/26 Waco Center

GS has about 1,583 students (as of fall 2023). GS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team. They have quick, athletic guards who are excellent three-point shooters, and who can also create their own shot. They have long, tall forwards and a bulky, strong center who is hard to defend. They play excellent defense. Glenville has 5 double figure scorers. Nos. 0, 23, 22,12 and 1 are excellent 3-pt shooters. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, so they may be vulnerable to fatigue.
Glenville is 7-1 in the last 8 games, losing only to Fairmont State. They are 10-6 in the MEC and 16-8 overall. They are a dangerous team, with the roster composition to defeat WLU.
WLU must avoid a cold shooting night, rebound well, generate turnovers and cause fatigue in Glenville. If Glenville breaks the press, I expect them to attack the rim to take open threes from the corner in transition.

Glenville State (GS) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. GS had 15 turnovers (11.7 season avg.). WLU had 17 turnovers, many of them unforced on bad passes in the half-court offense.
• FAILED – Attack the rim in transition or kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. GS missed numerous shots at the rim and shot below their average from 3FG.
• FAILED – Shoot their average. GS shot below their average in FG% and 3FG%.

Glenville Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	47.7%	37.8%
3FG%	37.7%	33.3%
FT%	71%	71.4%

• FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite their size advantage, WLU won the rebounding battle 43-31, as fatigue played a role.

Keys to the WLU Game
MEC teams are following a similar blueprint to challenge WLU. Tall, athletic teams with good 1-on-1 skills, strong guards, and several elite three-point shooters. So far, it seems that there is no longer more than 1 pushover in the league. GS has an impressively athletic team.
GS was packing the defense to stop the WLU inside game, and was leveraging their height with 7 blocks. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. WLU was playing without Spadafora, due to the flu.
WLU has added an additional dimension to their offense. I first noticed this trend in the recent Frostburg game. WLU has greatly increased their movement without the ball in the half-court offense, forcing the opponent to work very hard in their half-court defense. As a result, GS was often just a step late in defending WLU. When a WLU player had a GS player on his hip, WLU took their opponent to the rim, drawing contact and fouls. In addition, WLU is displaying more discipline in avoiding silly fouls. The result is a significant free throw disparity. WLU played excellent defense.
WLU had a 1-point lead with 7:12 left in the first half. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the WLU motion offense and moving against the WLU trapping defense. GS starters had played the first 9 to 12 minutes without a sub, which was ill-advised if one is trying to avoid fatigue. GS was showing signs of cracking. After some back-and-forth scores, a 3-point lead at the 4:11 mark swelled in 3 minutes to a 19-point WLU lead, primarily due to a rash of GS turnovers, easy WLU scores, and missed GS shots.
After the intermission, GS had recovered some energy, and made some runs, cutting the lead to 7 points at the 10:27 mark. However, WLU steadily rebuilt their lead to 17 over the next 7 minutes. GS was very fatigued, causing them to miss easy shots.
WLU had a sloppy passing game, which lowered their offensive rating to 112 compared to 90 for GS (90^th percentile D1 is 113). WLU had an elite 61.5% true shooting percentage compared to 48.1% for GS (90^th percentile for D1 is 58.9%). WLU forced 15 turnovers while committing 17 turnovers due to careless passing (90^th percentile D1 is 10.4).

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Strive to reduce the bad passes. Opponents are giving WLU players driving the baseline the impression that the corner teammate is open. When the player leaves his feet, opponents get in the passing lane and intercept the pass to the corner. Fairmont was the first team to use this tactic.
• Players getting the ball at the foul line with their back to the basket are dribbling excessively in a crowded area, which causes ball deflections and turnovers from defenders coming from the blind side.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Something for the data analytics types...
D1 90^th percentile stats used for quantitative measures for comparison because D2 stats are not readily available.
Red cells are 20% below median D1 stat ; green cells are >= 90 Percentile

WLU vs Fairmont 2/14/26 game 24
Statistic	Fairmont	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	34	26	763	826	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	70	54	1560	1692	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	13	33	397	459	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	15	44	530	615	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	10	11	234	254	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	25	28	676	727	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	10	7	257	282	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	23	21	565	611	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	33	28	822	893	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	29	18	435	469
Assists	12	18	420	455	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	16	11	274	294	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	2	1	53	56	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	5	12	273	294	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	11	16	451	481	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	23	19			N/A
Points in the Paint	48	26			N/A
Second Chance Points	17	6			N/A
Fast Break Points	14	32			N/A
Bench Points	27	40			N/A
Points	91	96	2157	2365	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	24	24	24	24
Number of Possessions	83	77	82	1975	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.10	1.24	1.20	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.93	0.948	0.994	0.994	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	110	124	120	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	55.7%	58.3%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	59.4%	65.4%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	86.7%	75.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	48.6%	48.1%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	40.0%	39.3%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	53.3%	57.7%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	16	11	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-5	5	20	7.8	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	19.4%	14.2%	333%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	45.5%	75.0%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	2.09	1.19	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	35.3%	69.2%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.75	1.64	1.55	1.55	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	76.7%	67.7%	71%	71%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	32.3%	23.3%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-5	5	17	-397	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Fairmont State (FS) 2/14/26

Fairmont State (FS) Preview
FS has about 3,300 students (as of 2023). They have a deep and talented team, with strong inside and outside players. It is purported that FS has the most resources in the MEC to acquire players.
They have 3 former D1 players from Marshall, Univ. Md BC, and Wright State. They are loaded with athletic, tall, long players, who can score at all three levels as well as quick guards. They have the former Concord big man in Diop.
They have quality depth; there are 8 players that play16 minutes or more and no one plays over 29 minutes.
Apparently, they have designed their roster to combat the fatigue generated by WLU and to score a high percentage of open looks from three or attack the rim when they break the trap. They shoot 49.2% FG, 39.6% 3FG (15^TH in D2) on about 11.3 3FG made per game. They share the ball with 17.7 assists and only 12.4 turnovers per game.



Fairmont State (FS) Game Plan
The FS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Mix up their defenses, switching between zone and man-to-man. In the first half, the zone slowed down the WLU offense, as they took additional time to get the ball passed into the middle of the zone at the foul line.
• PASSED – Get the ball inside to their taller players. When WLU has a guard drop down to double team Diop or Carter or others, pass the ball out to their many 40%+ three-point shooters.
• PASSED – Shoot their average FG % and 3FG%.

Stat	FS Season Avg	FS avg for WLU game	WLU season Avg	WLU avg for FS game
FG%	49.2%	48.6%	48.8%	48.1%
3FG%	39.6%	40%	34.9%	39.3%
# 3FG Made	11.3	10	10.6	11
FT%	73.6%	82%	74.6%	75%
# FT Made	17.6	13	19.1	33

• PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. FS had 16 turnovers while forcing only 11 WLU turnovers. However, FS got 23 points off turnovers to 19 points for WLU.
• FAILED – Attack WLU at the rim in transition after breaking the press or take a 3-pt. shot from the corner in transition if wide open. This approach failed because WLU rarely trapped, which gave FS few opportunities.
• FAILED – Dominate rebounding, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Although FS got more rebounds, the stats were much closer than in the first game. Some of the offensive rebounds were clustered around just a couple of scores, which limits their offensive rebounding margin on the outcome.

Keys to the WLU Game

FS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team that plays excellent defense and who can score at all three levels. They present numerous matchup problems against the shorter (overall) WLU team. When one plays such a strong team, WLU cannot have a subpar shooting performance (like WLU had in the first meeting) and must keep FS near their average shooting %. WLU cannot get dominated on the boards by this much taller team (unlike the first meeting).

• The advantage in foul shots was the determining factor in the WLU victory. WLU avoided getting in the 1-1 until late in the halves, whereas FS was in the 1-1 or double bonus much earlier in the halves.
• Like the second half of the Frostburg game, WLU predominately used man-to-man rather than trapping to pressure FS full-court to reduce the easy scores in transition (which FS got in the first meeting).
• Because WLU was not trapping, they could play longer without a rest, which allowed WLU to use the best matchup combinations for much of the game.
• Like the Frostburg game, WLU was playing fast in transition and in the half-court offense, creating fatigue without having to trap in the full-court. WLU was aggressive in attacking FS on offense at the rim, drawing numerous FS fouls.
• The WLU passing was excellent, finding the open man for the three, after collapsing the FS defense on dribble drives.
• WLU decided that they would make FS beat them with 2FGs, rather giving them open threes. At first, FS scored easily in the post. Then WLU started playing their big men in front of the taller FS players, which discouraged the post entry pass from FS. WLU greatly limited the wide-open looks from three by FS, compared to the first game.
• WLU shot above average at 39.3% 3FG on 11-28, while shot FS shot slightly above average 40% on 10-25. So 3FG% shooting was not a major advantage for WLU.

• WLU limited the rebounding disparity against the tall, long FS team. FS led in total rebounds 33-28 and in offensive rebounds 10-7. WLU pulled the FS big men out away from the rim because WLU big men were hitting threes, which reduced the FS height advantage in rebounding.
• The constant movement on offense by WLU and their tight man-to-man defense started to create mental fatigue on FS late in the game. WLU started breaking down the FS defense with beautiful passing for assists and easy scores. Several of the dominant players for FS started making silly fouls, which eventually led them to foul out of the game at a critical juncture late in the game. WLU was very disciplined in avoiding fouls.
• WLU predominantly played 2 big men rather than one in the game to partially limit the significant height advantage of FS. They got key rebounds and crucial scores

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• End-of-game player situational awareness. WLU had a ten-point lead with under 3 minutes. FS was trying to draw fouls. WLU was whistled for fouls that enabled FS to cut the lead to three late in the game. Players cannot allow the official’s judgment to come into play by contesting a shot that might have been a no-call earlier in the game. FS was in the double bonus and FS had to foul, giving WLU 2 shots on every foul. So, a more restrained approach to avoid closely contesting shots in the fading moments of the game is prudent.

[boatcapt]

WLU 96 Fairmont 91 avenging the early season loss. WLU is in the driver's seat for the MEC regular season crown. As I stated, WLU shot .395 from 3 and we win in a squeeker..

[TopperNation]

Time for my 3-month chime in, lol. I've been saying this for a little over 10 years now, you have to have a plan when your press is ineffective and not working! I get nightmares every time I think about WLU elite 8 appearances and the unwillingness to take off the full court press and either go to a half-court trap or full court man to man. I finally saw an adjustment and almost spilled my drink, lol. And I'm not talking an adjustment for maybe 2 or 3 plays; it was a big portion of the game! I couldn't do anything but smile because FB had WL on the ropes, even though I know that teams like Gannon, FSU, Cal, or even IUP would have coasted home with a W being up by 19. That was a big win, now let's not forget what we learned the other night when we play FSU. If they are scorching you, changeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I can accept a lost when you throw everything you have at the other team, but leaving things in your reserve and continuing to bump your head against the wall is insane.

[Columbuseer]

I hear you on Frostburg having potentional to be dangerous. Is Montano expected to return this year?

When I talked to some Frostburg folks in Jan. at WLU, they said that he was done for the year. It was some type of hand/wrist injury.