OT: Howlett update.
IU-Indy stands at 5-16 on the season. Team has broke 100 three times thus far. As a team, they are shooting .310 from 3.
They don't appear to have quality depth.
This will be the first time Howlett has finished the regular season below .500.
-
FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)
WVU vs WV State 1/19/26 Game 16 Statistic WV State WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 31 38 35 556 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 73 83 71 1138 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 15 16 31 283 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 22 21 24 382 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 7 16 10 166 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 27 36 30 487 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 12 18 12 188 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 29 31 24 388 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 41 49 36 576 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 17 19 21 330 Assists 18 24 19 300 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 23 19 13 200 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 5 2 2 30 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 6 12 13 212 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 19 23 22 352 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 10 28 N/A N/A Points in the Paint 48 44 N/A N/A Second Chance Points 8 20 N/A N/A Fast Break Points 23 14 N/A N/A Bench Points 21 52 65 N/A Points 84 108 96.5 1544 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 16 16 16 16 Number of Possessions 94 93 82 1318 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 0.90 1.16 1.17 1.17 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.88 0.989 0.991 0.991 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 90 116 117 117 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 47.3% 55.4% 56% 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 50.8% 58.5% 59% 59% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 68.2% 76.2% 74% 74% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 42.5% 45.8% 49% 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 25.9% 44.4% 34% 34% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 52.2% 46.8% 60% 60% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 23 19 13 13 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -4 4 21 9.5 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 24.6% 20.4% 15% 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 31.6% 52.2% 60% 60% estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers) Points per Opponent Turnover 0.53 1.22 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 58.1% 63.2% 54% 54% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.78 1.26 1.50 1.50 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 61.7% 72.1% 68% 68% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 27.9% 38.3% 31% 31% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -24 24 16 -248.81 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
FYIA Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs WV State 1/19/26
WLU 108 – WV State 84
WV Stat (WVS) Preview
WVS has about 3,458 students (2023). WV State is a talented, athletic team that has been struggling after the tragic death of their leading scorer Ishamel Smith. They have five double-figure scorers. At 6-10, #14 is an inside scoring and rebounding threat. #1, #7 and #11 are excellent three-point shooter. Their bench goes 9 deep, who play between 19.8 and 30.3 minutes a game.
WLU must shoot well, limit the WV State rebounding advantage, and tire out their shooters to limit their minutes and/or effectiveness. WLU must avoid foul trouble; else there will be serious matchup issues, as WV State is a tall, athletic team. They won their last game over Davis and Elkins. I expect them to attack the rim in transition, if they break the press.
Team Stats
Team Stats (5-9, 2-5)
WVS Game PlanOverall Team Statistics Statistic West Virginia St. Opponents Scoring Total Points 1134 1211 Points Per Game 81.0 86.5 Scoring Margin -5.5 -- Shooting FG: Made-Attempted 387-914 442-956 FG: Percentage .423 .462 FG: Per Game 27.6 31.6 3PT: Made-Attempted 111-342 119-377 3PT: Percentage .325 .316 3PT: Per Game 7.9 8.5 FT: Made-Attempted 249-355 208-300 FT: Percentage .701 .693 FT: Per Game 17.8 14.9 Rebounding Total 534 609 Per Game 38.1 43.5 Margin -5.4 -- Assists Total 160 214 Per Game 11.4 15.3 Turnovers Total 174 174 Per Game 12.4 12.4 Margin 0.0 -- Assist/Turnover Ratio 0.9 1.2 Points Off Turnovers 14.0 15.1 Steals Total 83 94 Per Game 5.9 6.7 Blocks Total 63 53 Per Game 4.5 3.8 Attendance Total 3336 1423 Per Game 9-371 4-356
The WVS strategy seemed to be:- PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their talented tall, athletic athletes,
- PASSED – Attack the rim in transition or kick out for threes,
- PASSED – Limit the WLU inside game with their tall, athletic players. They blocked 5 shots, and altered shots inside, until fatigue limited their effectiveness.
- PASSED– Shoot near their average. They also made 7 threes, which is near their average of 7.9,
WVS Stat Season Avg WLU Game FG% 42.3% 42.5% 3FG% 32.5% 25.9% FT% 70.1% 68.2% - FAILED –Dominate the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. Despite their size advantage, WLU won the rebounding battle 49-41 and offensive rebounds 18-12, as fatigue again played a role.
- FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. WVS had 23 turnovers (12.4 season avg.). Although WLU had an uncharacteristic 19 turnovers, 7 of these occurred in the last 4.5 minutes of the game with the WLU lead at 27 and after the bench had been cleared. WLU dominated points off turnovers 28-10.
WVS has tall, athletic teams with good 1-on-1 skills, strong guards, and several elite three-point shooters. However, WVS has been depleted by injuries for this game; Two starters, 6-10 Toussaint and 3-pt. shooter Shull, were not dressed. In addition, they lost Harris, their leading scorer, in the first two minutes of the game. That put them at a significant disadvantage.
The “second platoon” started the first shift at the beginning of the first and second halves, with 3 freshmen, a sophomore and a junior. WLU wanted to use shorter shifts of approximately 2-2.5 minutes, but the lack of stoppage in play forced the second platoon to play over 5 minutes to start the game, which affected the subsequent substitution strategy. It is becoming evident there is tremendous balance among11-12 players. To date, seven different players have attained leading scoring honors for a game.
Opponents can never be sure of who they need to prepare for when the game starts. WVS was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. WLU forced early turnovers and hit some timely threes to take an early lead. WLU led 50-42 at the half based on outstanding 3-point shooting.
Due to injuries that limited depth, WVS was not substituting frequently. WVS starters played the first 6,12,12,9 and 19 minutes respectively, before getting a rest in the first half. Like Glenville and CU before them, WVS played their starters too long without subbing. In the second half, this strategy proved to be their undoing.
In the first 1:31 of the second half, WLU extended the lead from 8 to 15 points. WVS was getting a step slow on defense and offense. The lead varied between 13 and 18 points for the next 6 minutes. By the 11:46 mark, the margin had grown to 20. WVS was clearly was clearly suffering from exhaustion. The lead grew to 29 by the 6:00 mark. WLU started putting in new players at about 4 minutes and they were quite rusty in their play.
Some keys to the victory:- WLU played excellent half-court defense against the talented WVS team, forcing them into difficult shots, while avoiding unnecessary fouls.
- WLU executed their half-court offense very effectively.
- WLU had an amazing 63% of goals from assists (90th percentile D1 is 59.6%). WLU made some great interior passes. They did a great job in finding the open shooter.
- WLU shot 44.4% from three (16-36), far above their 34% season average. This compensated for the low 2FG% of only 46.8% (it was much lower until WVS fatigue allowed for uncontested shots at the rim in the second half).
- WLU had a good offensive rating 116 points per 100 possessions (90th percentile D1 is 113), compared to a mediocre 90 offensive rating for WVS. The WLU stat is deceptive due to a rash of 7 turnovers in the last 4 minutes after the bench was cleared, which reduced the rating from 125 to 116.
- WLU had a 58.5% true shooting percentage, near the D1 90th percentile of 59%.
- WLU shot a good 76% FT.
- Against a much taller team, WLU won the rebounding battle.
Areas for Improvement for WLU- WLU allowed more long passes behind the trapping defense than usual, which resulted in some easy baskets.
- At times, WLU was slow in closing out and contesting the three. Based on NBA studies on 3-point shooting, WLU needs to get within 6 feet of shooter in order to reduce their 3-point %.
Leave a comment:
-
WLU beat WVS comfortably last night, 108-84.
Suddenly, WLU has started hitting it's 3's. Micro snapshot of the last 6 halves. WLU shot .266 the first three halves (all of the Glenville game and the first half of the Concord game) and we outscored our opponent by 10 points (131-121). The last three halves (2nd half of the Concord game and both half of the WVS game), WLU shot .511 from three over that stretch and outscored our opponent by 54 points (170-116).
So the question is, is this a hot streak or is this what we should expect moving forward (well maybe not .511, but .480-.500)? Was the first 14 games just growing pains and the team "gets it" now?
Like it or don't, what separates WLU from being a merely good team and a great one is 3 point shooting percentage. Are there other statistical areas that are important? Sure, but at WLU the pater familias is 3 point shooting %. Always has been...probably always will be.Last edited by boatcapt; 01-20-2026, 01:36 PM.Leave a comment:
-
One thing I was particularly impressed with this game was the press. It was clear Concord was having a ton of trouble getting into any kind of offensive rhythm in that game. And I think it was because the press was unpredictable this time around--WLU seemed to be varying its press tactics possession-by-possession. Sometimes they were trapping on the inbound catch (as they traditionally have under Crutch & Howlett). But other times they allowed the ballhandler to think he wasn't getting trapped and then sprung a trap on him. Once the ballhandler got about 15-20 feet up the court, a second WLU defender would suddenly leave his man and institute a trap. The unpredictability--am I getting trapped on the catch, trapped 20 feet from now, or not at all--seemed to seriously impact the Mountain Lion ballhandlers. Overall, that seemed like a really effective wrinkle to the press.Leave a comment:
-
FYI
A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Concord 1/17/26WLU 102- Concord 70
Concord (CU) Preview
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. #33 and #25 are both 6-8 and average 17 and 16 points on 57% and 60% FG, respectively. They are dominant inside. #33 is also deadly from three, shooting 51%. #4 and #11 are also elite from three. #25 is dominant on the boards. Their bench goes 8 deep with their two 6-8 players playing 30-31 minutes.
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 was 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
- FAILED – Shoot their average. CU shot significantly worse than their average in FG% and 3FG%. They actually shot more threes than WLU at 23-20. A modest bright spot was their FT was slightly above average a 78% (73% average) on 18-23 FTs.
Concord Stat Season Avg WLU Game FG% 45.7% 41.1% 3FG% 38.2% 26.1% FT% 75.6% 78.3% - FAILED –Dominate the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. Despite their size advantage, WLU won the rebounding battle 38-31, as fatigue again played a role.
- FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. CU had 18 turnovers (11.6 season avg.) while forcing only 9 WLU turnovers.
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 there is no longer more than 1 pushover in the league. CU has an impressively athletic team and was tied for first place in the MEC with WLU.
The “second platoon” started the first shift at the beginning of the first and second halves, with 3 freshmen and a sophomore. WLU was using shorter shifts of personnel, following the successful strategy of the Frostburg game. It is becoming evident there is tremendous balance among11-12 players. Opponents can never be sure of who they need to prepare for when the game starts. CU was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. WLU forced early turnovers and hit some timely threes to take an early lead. CU closed the gap to a 40-38 WLU lead at the half.
CU starters played the first 6 to 10 minutes without a sub. Several starters played between 16 and 19 minutes of the first half. Like Glenville, CU played their starters too long without subbing. In the second half, this strategy was to prove to be their undoing.
In the first 2:08 of the second half, WLU went on an 11-0 run to extend the lead to 53-38. CU was getting a step slow on defense and offense. By the 14:39, the margin had grown to 17. By the 9:08 mark, the lead was 22 and CU clearly was clearly suffering from exhaustion. The lead never went below 20 and CU took their starters at the 2:35 mark. The difference in depth between the second units became evident, as WLU increased the lead to 34, with the final score 102-70.
Some keys to the victory:- WLU played excellent half-court defense against the talented CU team, forcing them into difficult shots.
- WLU had 46% of goals from assists (90th percentile D1 is 59%), which is deceptively low, mainly because they were scoring from steals or beating their man off the dribble for layups. WLU made some great interior passes. They did a great job in finding the open shooter.
- WLU shot 50% from three (10-20), far above their 34% season average, and 57% FG (49% season average).
- WLU had an outstanding offensive rating of 137 points per 100 possessions (90th percentile D1 is 113) to a decent 94 offensive rating for CU.
- WLU had a 66% true shooting percentage, well above D1 90th percentile of 59%.
- They forced 18 turnovers while committing only 9 turnovers (90th percentile D1 is 10.4).
- WLU shot an outstanding 77% FT.
- Against a much taller team, WLU won the rebounding battle.
Areas for Improvement for WLU- Strive to protect the ball in traffic, as CU got some steals by players dribbling in traffic without an immediate goal of attacking the rim.
- Continue to build on effectiveness of the offense in finding the open shooter, as sometimes the ball sticks in one player’s hands.
Leave a comment:
-
FYI Stats on Concord Game - WLU 102 Concord 70WVU vs Concord 1/17/26 Statistic Concord WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 23 41 35 518 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 56 72 70 1055 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 18 10 31 267 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 23 13 24 361 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 6 10 10 150 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 23 20 30 451 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 10 12 11 170 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 21 26 24 357 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 31 38 35 527 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 13 17 21 311 Assists 10 19 18 276 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 18 9 12 181 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 4 1 2 28 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 6 17 13 200 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 9 18 22 329 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 7 19 N/A N/A Points in the Paint 34 56 N/A N/A Second Chance Points 7 10 N/A N/A Fast Break Points 2 16 N/A N/A Bench Points 17 48 65 N/A Points 70 102 96.9 1453 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 15 15 15 15 Number of Possessions 74 75 82 1225 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 0.94 1.37 1.19 1.19 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.89 1.040 0.991 0.991 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 94 137 119 119 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 46.4% 63.9% 56% 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 52.9% 65.6% 60% 60% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 78.3% 76.9% 74% 74% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 41.1% 56.9% 49% 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 26.1% 50.0% 33% 33% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 51.5% 59.6% 61% 61% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 18 9 12 12 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -9 9 21 9.9 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 24.3% 12.0% 15% 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 66.7% 94.4% 61% 61% estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers) Points per Opponent Turnover 0.78 1.06 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 43.5% 46.3% 53% 53% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.56 2.11 1.52 1.52 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 63.6% 72.2% 48% 48% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 27.8% 36.4% 24% 24% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -32 32 -16 -240 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
Now that was a statement win. To go into the Carter Center--which has been a real house of horrors for the Hilltoppers in recent years--and put on a defensive clinic like that was truly impressive. The defensive intensity from whistle to whistle was absolutely off the charts. Granted, Concord was down their second-leading scorer, Gilbert, who was reportedly in a boot on the sidelines. And I'm sure the Mountain Lions will be ready for the return visit--that's a good Concord team. But for tonight, that was definitely a statement win worth celebrating.Leave a comment:
-
FYI WLU Glenville Stats- Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available
WVU vs Glenville 1/14/26 Statistic Glenville WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 33 29 34 477 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 61 65 70 983 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 6 27 31 257 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 13 35 25 348 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 11 9 10 140 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 28 34 24 341 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 7 11 11 158 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 24 26 24 331 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 31 37 35 490 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 22 19 21 294 Assists 13 19 18 257 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 18 9 12 172 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 5 2 2 27 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 5 11 13 183 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 9 18 22 311 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 8 14 N/A N/A Points in the Paint 42 28 N/A N/A Second Chance Points 8 12 N/A N/A Fast Break Points 11 8 N/A N/A Bench Points 20 37 65 N/A Points 83 94 96.5 1351 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 15 14 14 14 Number of Possessions 78 78 82 1150 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 1.07 1.20 1.17 1.17 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.86 1.026 0.988 0.988 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 107 120 117 117 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 63.1% 51.5% 56% 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 62.2% 58.5% 59% 59% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 46.2% 77.1% 74% 74% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 54.1% 44.6% 49% 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 39.3% 26.5% 41% 41% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 66.7% 64.5% 52% 52% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 18 9 12 12 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -9 9 22 9.9 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 23.2% 11.5% 15% 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 55.6% 61.1% 59% 59% estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers) Points per Opponent Turnover 0.89 0.78 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 39.4% 65.5% 54% 54% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.72 2.11 1.49 1.49 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 68.6% 78.8% 67% 67% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 21.2% 31.4% 29% 29% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -11 11 -15 -210 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
FYI
A Dummy's Observations of WLU -Glenville Game - WLU 94 - Glenville 83
Glenville (GS) Preview
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 play excellent defense. Glenville has 5 double figure scorers. Nos. 0 and 23 are good 3-pt shooters. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, so they may be vulnerable to fatigue.
Here are some stats prior to the game, sorted by descending scoring average.Name GP MIN/G Pts/G FG% FGM/G FGA/G 3P% 3PM/G 3PA/G #01 Knott, Jalen 14 32.6 18.4 40.60% 5.9 14.4 38.1% 3.6 9.6 #12 Redfern, Elijah 14 22.3 16.9 44.50% 5.8 13 38.3% 2.2 5.8 #07 Mosengo, Prince 14 30.8 13.1 64.50% 5.6 8.6 57.1% 0.3 0.5 #33 Colon-Lewis, Don 14 2.7 12.3 25.00% 0.3 1.3 34.5% 2.1 6.2 #00 Maxwell, Ammar 14 32.8 10.8 49.60% 4.1 8.2 44.8% 0.9 2.1 #22 Gadd, Rye 14 7.4 7.9 38.80% 1.4 3.5 34.2% 0.9 2.7 #23 Boulden, Corey 14 4.8 4.1 25.00% 0.4 1.6 41.5% 1.2 2.9 #11 Crossman, Callum 8 27.6 3.3 52.40% 1.4 2.6 #02 Kelly, Julian 3 32.1 2.7 66.70% 0.7 1 100.0% 0.3 0.3 #13 Kisner, Garrison 9 12.6 1.4 38.50% 0.6 1.4 27.3% 0.3 1.2 #24 Holmes, Jordan 5 3.3 1 42.30% 4.5 10.6 0.0% 0 0.6 #14 Stump, Trey 8.7 45.60% 2.2 4.9 25.0% 0.3 1.3
Glenville (GS) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:- PASSED – Drive and kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. They had 4 players shoot over 40% from three.
- PASSED – Shoot their average. GS shot significantly better than their average in FG% and 3FG%. However, their FT was abysmal at 46% (73% average), likely due to fatigue.
Glenville Stat Season Avg WLU Game FG% 46.2% 54.1% 3FG% 37.6% 38.9% FT% 72.9% 46.2% - FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite their size advantage, WLU won the rebounding battle 37-31, as fatigue again played a role.
- FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. GS had 18 turnovers (12 season avg.) while forcing only 9 WLU turnovers.
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 there is no longer more than 1 pushover in the league. GS has an impressively athletic team.
The “second platoon” started the first shift at the beginning of the game, starting 3 freshmen and a sophomore. WLU was using shorter shifts of personnel, following the successful strategy of the Frostburg game. It is becoming evident there is tremendous balance among the 11-12 players. Opponents can never be sure of who they need to prepare for when the game starts. GS was packing the defense to stop the WLU inside game, and was leveraging their height with 5 blocks. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense.
GS led nearly all of the first half, sometimes by double digits. WLU rallied to cut the lead to six at halftime, 42-36. Davis played a key role in keeping WLU close, making 3 of 4 threes in the first half. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. GS starters played the first 6 to 10 minutes without a sub. Several starters played between 16 and 19 minutes of the first half. In the second half, this strategy was to prove to be their undoing.
WLU finally tied the game around the 15-minute mark of the second half. They were inexorably starting to exert their will on GS. GS was getting a step slow on defense, with WLU finding Davis for open looks from three. Davis was 3-5 from three in the second half. The WLU grew to 6 at the 12-minute mark, but the outcome remained in doubt. GS regained a 4-point lead at the 4:45 mark.
However, GS was playing on an empty tank. WLU hit open threes by several different players and got easy inside baskets. With a 6-point WLU lead with just over 2 minutes remaining, GS had to resort to fouling, WLU was making FTs, while GS was missing FTs due to dead legs. The final score did not reflect the closeness of the game.
WLU had an incredible 66% of goals from assists (90th percentile D1 is 59%). They did a great job in finding the open shooter, especially in the second half. WLU had an outstanding offensive rating of 120 points per 100 possessions (90th percentile D1 is 113). They forced 18 turnovers while committing only 9 turnovers (90th percentile D1 is 10.4). WLU shot an outstanding 77% FT.
Areas for Improvement for WLU- Strive to reduce the number of wide-open looks from three by the opponent. Some of these are unavoidable with the trapping style of WLU. GS had some outstanding three-point shooters, such as Boulden. However, their starters had bad (for them) 3FG% in the second half, likely due to fatigue from playing too many minutes.
- Continue to build on effectiveness of the offense in the second half, where WLU was much more effective in finding the open shooter.
Last edited by Columbuseer; 01-16-2026, 01:03 PM.Leave a comment:
-
FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)
WVU at Fairmont 1/10/26 Statistic Fairmont WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 27 29 35 451 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 50 63 71 921 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 33 25 31 236 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 40 36 23 298 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 12 6 10 135 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 29 26 31 400 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 7 8 12 150 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 34 19 24 308 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 41 27 35 459 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 22 28 20 266 Assists 17 9 19 247 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 19 10 13 165 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 6 1 2 26 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 5 12 13 172 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 10 19 23 295 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 13 21 N/A N/A Points in the Paint 28 40 N/A N/A Second Chance Points 8 9 N/A N/A Fast Break Points 19 14 N/A N/A Bench Points 16 62 65 N/A Points 99 89 96.8 1258 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 14 13 13 13 Number of Possessions 80 81 82 1067 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 1.24 1.10 1.18 1.18 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.85 0.975 0.986 0.986 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 124 110 118 118 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 66.0% 50.8% 56% 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 73.2% 56.4% 60% 60% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 82.5% 69.4% 79% 79% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 54.0% 46.0% 49% 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 41.4% 23.1% 34% 34% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 71.4% 62.2% 61% 61% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 19 10 13 13 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -9 9 22 10.0 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 23.9% 12.4% 15% 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 50.0% 63.2% 58% 58% estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers) Points per Opponent Turnover 1.30 1.11 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 63.0% 31.0% 55% 55% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.89 0.90 1.50 1.50 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 81.0% 73.1% 67% 67% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 26.9% 19.0% 31% 31% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin 10 -10 -15 -199.85 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
FYI
A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Fairmont State (FS) 1/10/26
Fairmont State (FS) Game Plan
FS has about 3,300 students (as of 2023). They have a deep and talented team, with strong inside and outside players.
They have 3 former D1 players from Marshall, Univ. Md BC, and Wright State. They have the Concord big man in Diop.
They have quality depth; there are 8 players that play 20 minutes or more and no one plays over 28 minutes.
Apparently, they have designed their roster to combat the fatigue generated by WLU. They shoot 47% FG, 34% 3FG on about 9.4 3FG made per game. They share the ball with 17 assists and only 13 turnovers per game.
Here are some stats, sorted by descending scoring average.The FS strategy seemed to be:Player games played min per game Scoring avg 3FGM 3FGA 3FG% 3FGA / Game FGM FGA FG% FGA / Game #02 Carter, Drey 13 27.5 16.3 8 20 40.0% 1.5 74 122 60.7% 9.4 #13 Martinez, Miguel 13 23.2 13.3 35 108 32.4% 8.3 57 146 39.0% 11.2 #03 Jolinder, David 13 27.7 12.7 16 51 31.4% 3.9 60 133 45.1% 10.2 #22 Meredith, CJ 12 19.9 11.5 27 69 39.1% 5.8 42 107 39.3% 8.9 #05 Peterson, Tyheil 12 22.3 8.6 16 47 34.0% 3.9 30 70 42.9% 5.8 #24 Diop, Rene 13 21.1 8.4 49 74 66.2% 5.7 #11 Brown, Joey 13 19.9 6.9 5 21 23.8% 1.6 28 73 38.4% 5.6 #00 Dobbs, Zycheus 13 20.3 5.5 1 1 100.0% 0.1 26 44 59.1% 3.4 #21 Spatafore, Anthony 9 6.8 2.9 6 12 50.0% 1.3 7 13 53.8% 1.4 #01 Thomas, Caleb 4 8.8 2.5 1 1 100.0% 0.3 4 6 66.7% 1.5 #23 Mangas, George 4 2.3 2 2 4 50.0% 1 3 5 60.0% 1.3 #04 West, Jaidyn 10 8.3 1.4 3 13 23.1% 1.3 5 20 25.0% 2 #12 Thomason, Brayden 5 2.6 1 1 1 100.0% 0.2 2 4 50.0% 0.8 #33 Lilja, Hugo 9 4.4 0.8 1 6 16.7% 0.7 3 8 37.5% 0.9 - PASSED – Drive and kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. They had 4 players shoot over 40% from three.
- PASSED – 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. They shot 54% FG % and 41.4% 3FG% for the game.
- PASSED – Shoot their average FG %. FS shot 54% FG %, 41.4% 3FG% and 82.5% FT%
- PASSED–Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. FS dominated defensive rebounding 34-19.
- FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. FS had 22 turnovers while forcing only 10 WLU turnovers. WLU got 21 points off turnovers to just 13 for FS.
FS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team that plays excellent defense. When one plays such a strong team, one cannot have a subpar shooting performance. FS won the game because they:- Limited offensive rebounds by WLU, limiting WLU to just 19% of possible offensive rebounds.
- Shot far above their average FG%, 3FG% and FT%.
- Dominated defensive rebounding stat.
- Made many 3FG in transition after breaking the press.
- Played strong defense, limiting WLU assists and interior passes with their length.
- WLU shot significantly below their average in FG%, 3FG% and FT%
In addition, Fairmont had an amazing effective shooting percentage of 66%, compared to very subpar 50.8% for WLU. D1 90th percentile is 55.4%.Fairmont Stat Season Avg WLU Game FG% 47% 54% 3FG% 34% 41.4% FT% 73% 82.5%
WLU forced 22 turnovers, while only committing 10 turnovers. WLU played with great effort and intensity throughout the game.
Areas for Improvement for WLU- Foul shooting
- Offensive rebounding. WLU only got 19% of possible offensive rebounds, where the D1 median is 28%.
- Strive to reduce the number wide-open looks from three by the opponent. Some of these are unavoidable with the trapping style of WLU.
Leave a comment:
-
But we owe D&E a big thanks for preventing Concord from taking sole possession of first place in the league. Odd loss for a Concord team that had really been clicking.Leave a comment:
-
Only 9 assists on 29 makes. Woof. That's not West Liberty basketball. Hats off to Fairmont. They're a really good team and they're really tough to beat in Joe Retton. Hopefully WLU is ready to return the favor when FSU makes the return trip to the ASRC.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: