A Dummy’s Observations on MEC WLU vs GU 3/7/26
WLU 105 – GU 100 in double OT
Glenville Univ. (GU) PreviewGS 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 4 double figure scorers and several elite three-point shooters. They have two of the best guards in the MEC in Knott and Redfern. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, and their bench only goes 7 deep, 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 18-11 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.
Here are some stats, sorted by descending scoring average.
Scoring
| Overall Scoring Statistics | ||||||||||||||||
| # | Player | GP | GS | |||||||||||||
| MIN | FGM | FGA | FG% | 3PT | 3PTA | 3PT% | FTM | FTA | FT% | PTS | AVG | |||||
| 14 | Stump, Trey | 9 | 0 | 27 | 3 | 12 | .250 | 3 | 12 | .250 | 0 | 0 | .000 | 9 | 1.0 | |
| 12 | Redfern, Elijah | 30 | 30 | 907 | 170 | 374 | .455 | 51 | 144 | .354 | 99 | 128 | .773 | 490 | 16.3 | |
| 07 | Mosengo, Prince | 30 | 30 | 928 | 155 | 254 | .610 | 8 | 13 | .615 | 67 | 89 | .753 | 385 | 12.8 | |
| 00 | Maxwell, Ammar | 30 | 26 | 849 | 124 | 257 | .482 | 15 | 47 | .319 | 62 | 86 | .721 | 325 | 10.8 | |
| 01 | Knott, Jalen | 30 | 30 | 978 | 178 | 425 | .419 | 111 | 286 | .388 | 79 | 109 | .725 | 546 | 18.2 | |
| 13 | Kisner, Garrison | 20 | 0 | 143 | 9 | 24 | .375 | 5 | 19 | .263 | 0 | 0 | .000 | 23 | 1.2 | |
| 02 | Kelly, Julian | 8 | 0 | 26 | 3 | 8 | .375 | 1 | 2 | .500 | 3 | 8 | .375 | 10 | 1.3 | |
| 24 | Holmes, Jordan | 8 | 0 | 34 | 2 | 10 | .200 | 0 | 4 | .000 | 2 | 6 | .333 | 6 | 0.8 | |
| 32 | Greenwich, Malachi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| 22 | Gadd, Rye | 24 | 4 | 486 | 55 | 111 | .495 | 23 | 58 | .397 | 43 | 60 | .717 | 176 | 7.3 | |
| 11 | Crossman, Callum | 24 | 0 | 248 | 46 | 79 | .582 | 0 | 1 | .000 | 27 | 42 | .643 | 119 | 5.0 | |
| 33 | Colon-Lewis, Don | 30 | 30 | 969 | 141 | 323 | .437 | 62 | 183 | .339 | 29 | 34 | .853 | 373 | 12.4 | |
| 23 | Boulden, Corey | 30 | 0 | 529 | 71 | 162 | .438 | 62 | 142 | .437 | 11 | 21 | .524 | 215 | 7.2 | |
| Total | 30 | 6125 | 957 | 2039 | .469 | 341 | 911 | .374 | 422 | 583 | .724 | 2677 | 89.23 | |||
| Opponents | 30 | 6125 | 839 | 1953 | .430 | 316 | 903 | .350 | 492 | 673 | .731 | 2486 | 82.87 | |||
Team Stats (18-12, 11-9)
| Overall Team Statistics | ||
| Statistic | Glenville St. | Opponents |
| Scoring | ||
| Total Points | 2677 | 2486 |
| Points Per Game | 89.2 | 82.9 |
| Scoring Margin | 6.4 | -- |
| Shooting | ||
| FG: Made-Attempted | 957-2039 | 839-1953 |
| FG: Percentage | .469 | .430 |
| FG: Per Game | 31.9 | 28.0 |
| 3PT: Made-Attempted | 341-911 | 316-903 |
| 3PT: Percentage | .374 | .350 |
| 3PT: Per Game | 11.4 | 10.5 |
| FT: Made-Attempted | 422-583 | 492-673 |
| FT: Percentage | .724 | .731 |
| FT: Per Game | 14.1 | 16.4 |
| Rebounding | ||
| Total | 1158 | 1096 |
| Per Game | 38.6 | 36.5 |
| Margin | 2.1 | -- |
| Assists | ||
| Total | 478 | 392 |
| Per Game | 15.9 | 13.1 |
| Turnovers | ||
| Total | 360 | 389 |
| Per Game | 12.0 | 13.0 |
| Margin | 1.0 | -- |
| Assist/Turnover Ratio | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| Points Off Turnovers | 16.5 | 13.0 |
| Steals | ||
| Total | 204 | 221 |
| Per Game | 6.8 | 7.4 |
| Blocks | ||
| Total | 101 | 84 |
| Per Game | 3.4 | 2.8 |
| Attendance | ||
| Total | 4850 | 4046 |
| Per Game | 14-346 | 13-311 |
Glenville (GU) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:
- PASSED – Attack the rim in transition with their tall players or kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters.
- PASSED – Shoot their average. GS shot far above average in FG, 3FG and FT. These numbers were good enough for almost certain victory, except against WLU.
| Stat | Glenville Season Avg | Glenville vs WLU | WLU stats |
| FG% | 46.9% | 50.8% | 44.4% |
| 3FG% | 37.4% | 55.2% | 33.3% |
| FT% | 72.4% | 90.0% | 54.8% |
- FAILED– Limit the turnover margin. GS had 28 turnovers (12.0 season avg.).
- FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite GU’s size advantage, WLU dominated offensive rebounding won the rebounding battle 23-9.
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 WLU and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. GU was playing their starters far too long in the first half and continued this strategy in the second half. It would prove to be their undoing.
In addition to putting great pressure on GU with their trapping defense, the constant movement of WLU on offense was forcing GU to work very hard on defense. By the second half, GU was getting a step slow. WLU was attacking them by driving to the rim and drawing fouls.
Despite being a smaller team, WLU got an amazing 41% of offensive rebounds (D1 90th percentile is 33%). An amazing 78.6% of the 28 forced turnovers by WLU were live ball turnovers (D1 90th percentile is 55%). WLU scored 33 points off turnovers to just 15 for GU. These live ball turnovers were essential in erasing the 9-point GU lead in the last three minutes. WLU forced 4 turnovers in the last 3:30 seconds. A deep three by WLU with 30 seconds remaining tied the score at 77.
GU was exhausted, both mentally and physically. Key players fouled out for GU, instinctively committing fouls and losing situational awareness (that they had to stay in the game and could not foul out). However, give GU credit. Despite having little depth, they kept battling until the end of the 2nd OT.
Often, victory often depends on a combination of 3 factors – true shooting %, offensive rebounding, and points off turnover margin. Teams that are deficient in one factor can win by dominating in one or more other factors, with the objective of getting more FGA or FTA to offset an lower true shooting percentage, resulting in higher points per possession.
In this game, a high points off turnover margin (33-15) and offensive rebounding margin (23-9) resulted in WLU getting 26 more FGA than Glenville. It allowed WLU to squeak out a win.
Areas for Improvement for WLU
- WLU has had shooting woes for the last three games, especially foul shooting. Hopefully, it is an aberration. Wheeling showed that limiting points off turnover margin and shooting better than WLU is a key to beating WLU,
Leave a comment: