West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Scrub]

You're right, Columbus. That was a heck of a basketball game. And UC really came in with a solid gameplan and nice blueprint to get out with a win. They did not attack after breaking the press (which almost always frustrates a WLU team that wants to keep the pace going up-and-down). They rebounded very strongly. And in a departure from their first meeting, they chose to sub 5-for-5 to match WLU's depth. A few teams have tried that years ago (I recall Glenville trying it once, and I feel like maybe D&E did once). But typically when teams try it, the deficit builds when the "second team" is on the floor. Most teams just aren't prepared to go 10 deep on their benches at this level. In the second half, it honestly felt like UC's second unit was more effective than their first. Clearly they have the depth to pull it off.

Great game plan and a really game effort from the Golden Eagles. Hats off to their new coach who really had them ready for this one. Heck of a basketball game to watch, and could be scary if a third (or 4th) meeting were to materialize.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats

• Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)

WVU vs Charleston 1/31/26 Game 20
Statistic	Charleston	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	31	26	34	681	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	71	52	70	1394	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	9	26	31	364	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	12	31	24	486	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	13	11	11	210	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	34	27	30	602	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	13	3	12	231	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	23	23	25	506	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	36	26	37	737	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	25	17	20	399
Assists	17	18	19	371	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	14	10	13	250	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	2	4	2	46	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	6	10	12	244	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	10	14	20	405	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	15	15	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	36	28	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	16	6	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	12	21	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	22	42	65		N/A
Points	84	89	96.8	1936	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	19	20	20	20
Number of Possessions	77	73	81	1627	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.09	1.23	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.99	0.904	0.988	0.988	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	109	123	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	52.8%	60.6%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	55.1%	67.8%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	75.0%	83.9%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	43.7%	50.0%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	38.2%	40.7%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	48.6%	60.0%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	14	10	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-4	4	20	7.8	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	18.1%	13.8%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	60.0%	71.4%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.50	1.07	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	54.8%	69.2%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.21	1.80	1.48	1.48	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	88.5%	63.9%	69%	69%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	36.1%	11.5%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-5	5	16	-322	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Charleston 1/31/26
WLU 89 – UC 84

Univ. Charleston (UC) Preview

The University of Charleston (UC) in West Virginia is a private institution with a total enrollment of approximately 3,000 to 3,032 students as of Fall 2024–2025.
UC comes into the WLU game at 12-5 (8-4 in MEC), with an 8-gme winning streak and victories over Fairmont and Concord. They are the best shooting team in D2, with an effective FG % of 61.3%. They are 2^nd in D2 at 52.2% FG. They are 2^nd in D2 in 3FG % at 41.38%. They have 5 players who are elite 3FG shooters – #01 Robertson 54.4%, #11 Rivens 50%, #33 Davis 44%, #14 Nicol 41.3%, and #02 Campbell 40%, along with 4 other players who shoot over 36% from three. They share the ball, ranked 9^TH in D2 in assists at 18.2. They average 82 points a game. This season they have won the rebounding battle. Their vulnerability appears to be turnovers, as they average 16.2 turnovers a game. They have very balanced scoring with 5 players averaging between 9.7 and 12.4 points per game. They have a deep bench, with 10 players averaging over 11 minutes and no one playing more than 28 minutes. UC seems to have built a team roster that has the depth and firepower to defeat WLU. In their first matchup, UC could not protect the ball, committing 30 turnovers.

UC Game Plan
IMHO, UC had a great game plan. The UC strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – In the half-court offense, attack WLU on the dribble drive or in the post. If help defense comes, kick the ball out for an open three by their deadly shooters. They played an isolation game in the block with Hailey. When a WLU guard dropped down to double him to make him pick up his dribble, he would pass back to the guard for an open three.
• PASSED – Dominate the boards. UC won the rebounding battle 36-26 and won offensive rebounds 13-3. Their blocking out on rebounds was a thing of beauty.
• PASSED – Substitute frequently to mitigate effects of fatigue –They were doing platoon subs at the same time at WLU. No one for UC played more than 4.15 minutes before getting a rest. However, 4 UC players played 25 minutes. This was the best fatigue mitigation strategy that I have seen against WLU. Few teams have the quality depth of UC to allow this subbing frequency. I do question whether UC allowed a long enough rest for their players to fully recover in the second half from the cumulative effects of fatigue. Some of the players looked totally exhausted when they came out of the game, even in the first half!
• PASSED – Play tight half-court defense. However, fatigue ultimately caused them to get a step slow on their defense in the second half.
• PASSED– Avoid an up-and-down game with WLU. When they broke the press, they did not attack the rim when they had numbers, deciding instead to set up the offense or take a wide-open three from the corner.
• PASSED – Limit turnovers. Although turnovers have been an issue with UC in their previous game with WLU, UC did a good job of committing only 14 turnovers.
• FAILED – Shoot their average FG% and 3FG %. After shooting 53% 3FG in the first half, UC was 38.2% 3FG for the game, below their 41.38% season average. They only shot 43.7 % FG, far below their 52.2% average.
• FAILED –Keep the WLU score under 80 as UC averages 82 ppg. In the first half, they succeeded with WLU leading only 41-40. However, WLU scored 48 in the second half, as the mental fatigue affected UC.

Keys to the WLU Game
This was a high-quality basketball game, matching two teams with great shooters and quality depth. From the opening tip, it was apparent that WLU was playing with great intensity. WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently and putting severe mental stress on UC, even though UC was keeping pace with the subbing.

• IMHO, the difference in the game was WLU creating mental fatigue and physical fatigue in UC, even though UC was subbing frequently. Recognizing that UC was getting a step slow on defense, WLU attacked the rim, drawing numerous fouls on UC.
• WLU won at the FT line, shooting shot an outstanding 84% on 28-31 FTs to UC’s 9-12 and 75%. WLU did a great job in avoiding low-value fouls, that result in and-ones or foul trouble. WLU fouled out two of their great shooters late in the game.
• WLU shot 40.7% on 11-27 3FG, well above their 35% average.
• WLU performed at elite level offensively, at 123 points per 100 possessions (D1 90^th percentile in 113) while UC was outstanding at 109. WLU’s true shooting % bested UC 68% to 55% (90^th percentile D1 is 59%)

In summary, WLU won the game with great 3FG and FT shooting, while playing with incredible intensity on defense and attacking UC on offense to get fouls. Despite UC subbing, WLU got UC tired just enough for their shooting and defense to decline late in the game. The pressure also limited the time that UC had to run their offense.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU may need to work on a solution to size mismatches on switches. When UC saw a mismatch, they went to a low-post isolation scheme and either scored or kicked the ball out to the corner or wing for a wide-open three when WLU double-teamed the post player. Great strategy by UC. I expect other teams to copy the approach.

[Columbuseer]

We fans sometimes fret about 3PT %, FG%, FT %, etc.
An advanced metric for shooting efficiency is called True Shooting Percentage.
60% or higher is considered elite.
WLU has 6 players averaging over 60% for the season, ranging from 67.4% to 60.7%.

Here is definition, courtesy of https://www.breakthroughbasketball.c.../tsp_calc.html

In basketball, true shooting percentage is an APBRmetrics (Association for Professional Basketball Research Metrics) statistic that measures a player's efficiency at shooting the ball. It is intended to more accurately calculate a player's shooting than field goal percentage, free throw percentage, and three-point field goal percentage taken individually. Two- and three-point field goals and free throws are all considered in its calculation. It is abbreviated TS%.

It is calculated by using the formula:

Where:

• PTS = Points Scored
• FGA = field goal attempts
• FTA = free throw attempts

[Columbuseer]

The one thing you didn't mention about that game, Columbus, is that Spadafora reinjured the ankle that he originally sprained down at D&E (I think that was the game). He didn't return in the second half of the WVSU game. So if he's not healthy going forward, that's a pretty significant loss from an experience and leadership perspective.

Good point. Hope it is nothing serious for Dante.
Another item I forgot to mention was one of the best WLU "blackouts" of the season.
At 17:46 of the 2nd half, WLU led by 9, 56-47. In the next two minutes and 44 seconds, WLU went on a 15-0 run, to stretch their lead to 24 at 71-47 at the 15:02 mark. Very impressive.

[Scrub]

The one thing you didn't mention about that game, Columbus, is that Spadafora reinjured the ankle that he originally sprained down at D&E (I think that was the game). He didn't return in the second half of the WVSU game. So if he's not healthy going forward, that's a pretty significant loss from an experience and leadership perspective.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available

WVU vs WV State 1/28/26 Game 19
Statistic	WV State	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	35	38	34	655	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	67	78	71	1342	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	6	13	31	338	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	8	16	24	455	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	6	14	10	199	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	25	41	30	575	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	6	18	12	228	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	22	27	25	483	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	28	45	37	711	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	12	16	20	382
Assists	14	21	19	353	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	16	11	13	240	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	2	4	2	37	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	4	8	12	234	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	11	16	21	391	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	19	26	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	52	44	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	6	20	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	24	17	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	42	47	65		N/A
Points	82	103	97.2	1847	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	19	19	19	19
Number of Possessions	81	78	82	1554	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.02	1.32	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.88	1.090	0.992	0.992	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	102	132	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	56.7%	57.7%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	58.1%	60.6%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	75.0%	81.3%	74%	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	52.2%	48.7%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	24.0%	34.1%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	69.0%	64.9%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	16	11	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-5	5	20	7.9	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	19.9%	14.1%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	36.4%	50.0%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.73	1.63	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	40.0%	55.3%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.88	1.91	1.47	1.47	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	55.0%	81.8%	69%	69%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	18.2%	45.0%	33%	33%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-21	21	17	-317	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at WV State 1/28/26
WLU 103 - WV State 82

WV State (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.
During their last meeting on Jan 19, WVS was missing at least three of their starters. They are now well, so one could expect a much closer 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. I expect WVS to attack the rim in transition, if they break the press.

WVS Game Plan
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 turnover margin. WVS had 16 turnovers (12.4 season avg.) to 11 for WLU. Although WLU had only 11 turnovers, 3 of these occurred in the last 5.5 minutes of the game with the WLU lead at 29 and the game out of reach.
• MIXED– WVS shot an outstanding 69% of their 2-point FG%, as many of them were scored inside after breaking the press. However, their three-point shooting was much lower at 6-25.

Opponent Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	44.5%	52.2%
3FG%	33.4%	24%
FT%	74.5%	75.0%

• FAILED – Limit WVS fatigue. There were 10 instances in the first half where WVS players played more than 5.5 minutes before a sub. Of these 10, six instances were over 9.5 minutes before a sub. In the second half, there were 7 instances of players playing > 8.25 minutes without a sub, with some playing 14 or 15 minutes. Although they only had 16 turnovers, fatigue greatly affected the WVS defense, allowing easy back-door cuts for layups and WLU domination of the boards. IMHO, it also affected their three-point shooting.
• FAILED – Limit the WLU inside game with the tall, athletic WVS players. WVS only outscored WLU 52-44 in the paint. WLU had great interior passing that led to layups in the half-court offense.
• FAILED –Dominate the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. Despite their size advantage, WLU dominated the rebounding battle 45-28 and offensive rebounds 18-6, as fatigue again played a role.

Keys to the WLU Game
In the first half, no WLU player played more than 5.35 minutes before a rest. In the second half, only two players played more than 5.5 minutes. Most played 2-4 minutes before subbing out in both halves.

• IMHO, this might have been the best half-court offensive game this season – great interior passing, and back door cuts for easy scores. The ball was not sticking. WLU had a stellar offensive rating of 132 points per 100 possessions (90^th percentile D1 is 113), compared to an average 102 offensive rating for WVS.
• WLU got 2 ten-second calls against WVS, which is incredibly difficult to achieve. I was impressed that on occasion, when a non-guard for WVS picked up his dribble deep in the back court, WLU defenders left him and sprinted to cover all his teammates, resulting in a 5 guarding 4 situation. The WVS player did not know what to do!
• WLU was slightly ahead in True Shooting Percentage 60% to 58% (d1 90^th percentile is 59%), but WLU got 11 more FGA than WVS and made 8 more threes.
• During the first 35 minutes of the game, WLU dominated 3FG % at 14-31 or 45%. However, with the lead at 29 and 5 minutes remaining, some players rushed their shots and WLU missed 10 threes to finish 14-41.
• A key factor was fatigue, which allowed WLU to dominate the rebounding and get easy scores inside, due to the tired legs of WVS. Once the lead reached 20+, WVS started playing like a YMCA pickup game, with no team offense or ball movement and players just going 1-on-1. Admittedly, WVS made some impressively tough shots, but it is hard to make difficult shots for an entire game.

In summary, WLU won the game by exhausting WVS with both their press and their constant movement in their half-court offense, which caused the WVS 3-point shooting to decline, as well as allowing WLU to get easy rebounds and scores.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Late in the game, WLU lost their offensive discipline with a 25+ point lead, and were rushing three-point shots slightly off-balance, rather than passing for the wide-open look.
• Improve on protecting the ball – in some cases, players may be dribbling too high, which leads to a steal.

[Scrub]

Gotta get the turnover issue fixed. That's really uncharacteristic for a WLU team to lose the turnover battle, but it's happened a few times this year. Gotta take care of the ball.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available

WVU vs Wheeling 1/24/26 Game 18
Statistic	Wheeling	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	31	27	34	617	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	75	57	70	1264	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	14	28	31	325	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	25	40	24	439	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	5	11	10	185	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	27	24	30	534	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	12	7	12	210	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	20	34	25	456	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	32	41	37	666	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	26	22	20	366
Assists	11	16	18	332	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	8	14	13	229	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	7	5	2	33	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	10	4	13	226	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	14	8	21	375	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	12	10	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	46	32	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	22	11	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	16	28	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	10	39	65		N/A
Points	81	93	96.9	1744	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	17	18	18	18
Number of Possessions	82	82	82	1476	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.99	1.14	1.18	1.18	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	1.05	0.914	0.987	0.987	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	99	114	118	118	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	44.7%	57.0%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	47.1%	62.3%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	56.0%	70.0%	74%	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	41.3%	47.4%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	18.5%	45.8%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	54.2%	48.5%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	8	14	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	6	-6	20	8.1	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	9.8%	17.2%	16%	16%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	71.4%	50.0%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.86	1.25	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	35.5%	59.3%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.38	1.14	1.45	1.45	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	74.1%	73.9%	68%	68%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	26.1%	25.9%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-12	12	16	-296	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Wheeling 1/24/26

WLU 93- WU 81

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 #5 shoot over 36% from three. Three players average double figures, led by #1 (17.7), #10 (13.4), #4 (11.7), #13 (9), #5 (8.5), and #23 (8.4). They average about 12 turnovers and create about 9 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 8 turnovers, while forcing WLU to 15 turnovers with quick hands and by overplaying the passing lanes. Ten of the 15 forced turnovers were steals. It is very rare that a WLU opponent wins the turnover margin. WU had a great defensive plan.
• Beat the WLU press by throwing over the press. After WLU shot the ball, a WU player would sprint downcourt to get a long pass for a layup. They had obviously found a vulnerability on video.
• PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their athletic players and kick out to their elite 3-point shooters.
• PASSED– Win the rebounding battle, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. WU won the offensive rebounding battle 12-7, even though WLU outrebounded them overall 41-32.
• FAILED– Shoot near their average.

PP Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	44.5%	41.3%
3FG%	33.4%	18.5%
FT%	74.5%	56.0%

• FAILED – Limit WU fatigue. WU had excellent physical conditioning. They had few turnovers for the first 27 minutes of the game, even though they were playing at a fast pace. Although WU did a decent job of subbing in the first half by playing 9 players, the starters played too long without a break. They ran out of gas midway through the second half.

Keys to the WLU Game
The “second platoon” started for the 3^rd or 4^th consecutive game with 3 freshmen, a sophomore and a junior. Except for a couple of instances in first half, each WLU player played less than 4 minutes before a rest. Some WLU players played longer periods in the second half.

• WLU dominated the three-point FG % (46% to 19%, 33-15 points) and the FT % (70% to 56%, 28-14 points).
• WLU had an average (for WLU) offensive rating of 114 points per 100 possessions (90^th percentile D1 is 113), compared to an average 99 offensive rating for WU.
• WLU won True Shooting percentage 62% to 47% (d1 90^th percentile is 59%).
• Although WLU committed 15 turnovers to just 8 for WU, WU only scored two more points off turnovers (12-10).

In summary, WLU won the game by exhausting a well-conditioned WU team, which caused their 3-point shooting to decline late in the game, as well as allowing WLU to get easy rebounds and scores. Around the 13-minute mark, a WLU would get a rebound and dribble down the court, running past 3 WU players who were still the back court, leading to easy scores. That enabled WLU to rapidly turn a five-point deficit into a double-digit lead.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU had a negative turnover margin, The quick hands of WU were stripping the ball when dribbling in traffic and overplaying the passing lanes.

At times, WLU was slow in transitioning from offense to defense, allowing WU to get behind the defense and get a long pass for layups.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)

WVU vs Point Park 1/21/26 Game 17
Statistic	Point Park	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	27	34	35	590	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	69	69	71	1207	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	4	14	31	297	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	8	17	23	399	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	14	8	10	174	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	34	23	30	510	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	11	15	12	203	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	20	34	25	422	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	31	49	37	625	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	16	14	20	344
Assists	16	16	19	316	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	15	15	13	215	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	3	3	2	33	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	10	10	13	222	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	15	15	22	367	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	13	15	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	26	42	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	12	18	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	11	22	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	2	47	65		N/A
Points	72	90	90.8	1544	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	15	17	17	17
Number of Possessions	77	76	82	1395	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.94	1.18	1.11	1.11	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.95	1.000	0.991	0.991	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	94	118	111	111	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	49.3%	55.1%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	49.6%	58.8%	56%	56%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	50.0%	82.4%	74%	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	39.1%	49.3%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	41.2%	34.8%	34%	34%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	37.1%	56.5%	60%	60%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	15	15	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	0	0	21	8.9	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	19.6%	19.6%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	66.7%	66.7%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.87	1.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	59.3%	47.1%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.07	1.07	1.47	1.47	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	57.1%	75.6%	69%	69%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	24.4%	42.9%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-18	18	10	-176.81	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

Point Park (PP) Preview
Point Park University has around 3,400-3,500 total students, with recent figures showing 3,448 total students in 2024. PP has 5 players averaging in double figures. Their record is 3-11. They have former IUP and WLU player #15 Jaylen Stewart (8 pts, 33% 3FG, 26 mins), who transferred after injuring his knee at WLU. They have two elite 3-point shooters in #11 (16.5 pts, 51% 3FG, 31 mins) and #3 (12.4 pts, 43% 3FG, 33 mins). They recently lost to Frostburg in OT 79-76 on their home floor and defeated WV State at Institute, so they should not be considered a pushover. They have 7 players who play 17 minutes or more, so they may be vulnerable to fatigue.
WLU must shoot well, win the rebounding battle, meet their average turnover margin, and tire out their shooters to limit their minutes and/or effectiveness. It will be interesting to see if they attack the rim in transition, if they break the press.

Team Stats (3-11, 2-8)

Overall Team Statistics
Statistic	Point Park	Opponents
Scoring
Total Points	1023	1215
Points Per Game	73.1	86.8
Scoring Margin	-13.7	--
Shooting
FG: Made-Attempted	374-857	448-886
FG: Percentage	.436	.506
FG: Per Game	26.7	32.0
3PT: Made-Attempted	144-394	134-350
3PT: Percentage	.365	.383
3PT: Per Game	10.3	9.6
FT: Made-Attempted	131-173	185-258
FT: Percentage	.757	.717
FT: Per Game	9.4	13.2
Rebounding
Total	410	548
Per Game	29.3	39.1
Margin	-9.9	--
Assists
Total	193	237
Per Game	13.8	16.9
Turnovers
Total	171	154
Per Game	12.2	11.0
Margin	-1.2	--
Assist/Turnover Ratio	1.1	1.5
Points Off Turnovers	11.1	16.4
Steals
Total	85	106
Per Game	6.1	7.6
Blocks
Total	14	36
Per Game	1.0	2.6
Attendance
Total	1083	3264
Per Game	5-217	9-363

PP Game Plan
The PP strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED– Shoot near their average. They also made 14-34 threes. They normally make 10 threes. However, fatigue resulted in only 50% FT (4-8).

PP Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	43.6%	39.1%
3FG%	36.5%	41.2%
FT%	75.7%	50.0%

• PASSED– Limit the turnover margin. WLU and PP both had 15 turnovers
• FAILED – Win the rebounding battle, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. WLU won the rebounding battle 49-31 and offensive rebounds 15-11, as fatigue again played a role.
• FAILED – Limit the WLU inside game. They allowed second chance points by WLU inside.
• FAILED – Limit PP fatigue. Although PP did a decent job of subbing in the first half by resting some starters for 4 minutes, five players played over 30 minutes for the game and a total of 7 players played >= 14 minutes. They ran out of gas midway through the second half.

Keys to the WLU Game
The “second platoon” started the first shift at the beginning of the first and second halves, with 3 freshmen, a sophomore and a junior. Both platoons attacked PP aggressively and jumped out to an early double-digit lead. WLU led 45-30 at the half.
PP starters played between 6 and 10 minutes before getting a rest in the first half. They did a better job of subbing in the first half than prior opponents, which gave them more energy at the start of the second half. In the second half, PP made a run based on outstanding three-point shooting, combined with WLU missed shots and layups as well as two turnovers in the first 3.5 minutes, cutting the WLU lead to 3.
WLU responded to the PP run and extended the lead from 3 to 11 points in 75 seconds at the 15:14 mark. PP was not to make a serious run for the rest of the game. By the 10:50 mark, the margin had grown to 21. PP had run out of gas and WLU dominated the boards.

Some keys to the victory:

• WLU executed their half-court offense very effectively.
• WLU overcame an average shooting performance and a hot three-point shooting PP team by dominating the rebounding 49-31.
• WLU leveraged their height advantage by winning second chance points 18-12, and winning points in the paint 42-26.
• WLU had a good offensive rating 118 points per 100 possessions (90^th percentile D1 is 113), compared to a decent 94 offensive rating for PP.
• WLU had a 58.8% true shooting percentage, near the D1 90^th percentile of 59%.
• WLU shot an outstanding 82.4% FT.

In summary, WLU won the game by exhausting a PP team, which caused their 3-point shooting to decline late in the game, as well as allowing WLU to get easy rebounds and scores.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU did not generate a positive turnover margin, and both teams had 15 turnovers. The quick hands of PP were stripping the ball when dribbling in traffic.
• 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 %.

[Scrub]

Thank God it was only Point Park last night. The Hilltoppers did not play particularly well. Too much solo stuff and not enough ball movement. And the soloing resulted in a higher than usual turnover count and a lower than usual assist count. Gotta play as a unit this Saturday, as a very game Wheeling will come in here looking to win the first half of the rivalry home-and-home. Wheeling is having a nice season and will make the Toppers pay for a poor performance in ways PPU didn't have the firepower to do.

[boatcapt]

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.