West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Concord 1/17/26

WLU 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.

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 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 (90^th 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 (90^th percentile D1 is 113) to a decent 94 offensive rating for CU.
• WLU had a 66% true shooting percentage, well above D1 90^th percentile of 59%.
• They forced 18 turnovers while committing only 9 turnovers (90^th percentile D1 is 10.4).
• WLU shot an outstanding 77% FT.
• Against a much taller team, WLU won the rebounding battle.

In summary, WLU won the three important phases of the game – shooting, turnovers and rebounding.

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.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Stats on Concord Game - WLU 102 Concord 70

WVU 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) / Possessions	0.89	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.

[Scrub]

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.

[Columbuseer]

FYI WLU Glenville Stats

• Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90^th 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) / Possessions	0.86	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.

[Columbuseer]

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.

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 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 (90^th 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 (90^th percentile D1 is 113). They forced 18 turnovers while committing only 9 turnovers (90^th 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.

[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 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) / Possessions	0.85	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.

[Columbuseer]

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.

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

The FS 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 – 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.

Keys to the WLU Game
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%

FS shot significantly better than their average in FG%, 3FG% and FT%.

Fairmont Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	47%	54%
3FG%	34%	41.4%
FT%	73%	82.5%

In addition, Fairmont had an amazing effective shooting percentage of 66%, compared to very subpar 50.8% for WLU. D1 90^th percentile is 55.4%.
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.

[boatcapt]

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.

Add to that 24% from 3. Two base things WLU has done very well over the years...Shoot the 3 and assists. Take those two things away and WLU becomes very beatable.

[Scrub]

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.

[Scrub]

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.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Advanced Stats on WL Frostburg Game
Red background is 20% below D1 median
Green background is > 90th percentile in D1

WVU versus Frostburg 1/7/26
Statistic		Frostburg	WL	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
Factor	0.44		0.44	0.44	0.44
FGM	31		42	35	419	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	71		82	71	855	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	23		19	31	205	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	31		28	23	277	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	9		14	10	125	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	28		36	31	371	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	15		12	12	139	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	29		25	24	286	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	44		37	36	426	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	21		26	21	247
Assists	17		24	19	229	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	25		12	13	153	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	3		3	2	24	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	8		15	13	160	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	12		25	23	274	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	11		32	N/A	N/A	N/A
Points in the Paint	38		56	N/A	N/A	N/A
Second Chance Points	21		16	N/A	N/A	N/A
Fast Break Points	21		23	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bench Points	24		72	65	N/A	N/A
Points	94		117	97.3	1168	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	13		12	12	12
Number of Possessions	95		94	83	991	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Avg. Possessions per Game
Pts per Possession	0.99		1.24	1.18	1.18	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.89		1.000	0.994	0.994	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	99		124	118	118	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	50.0%		59.8%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	55.5%		62.0%	49%	49%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	74.2%		67.9%	74%	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	43.7%		51.2%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	32.1%		38.9%	34%	34%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	51.2%		60.9%	61%	61%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	25		12	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-13		13	22	10.1	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	26.4%		12.7%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	66.7%		60.0%	58%	58%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.92		1.28	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	54.8%		57.1%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.68		2.00	1.50	1.50	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	70.7%		62.5%	66%	66%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	37.5%		29.3%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-23		23	0	0.1111	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Frostburg (FB) 1/7/26 WLU 117- FB 94

Frostburg (FB) Game Plan
FB has 3,320 students (as of 2025). Their coach is in his second season and FB is no longer an easy win. He has demonstrated a knack for finding under-the-radar talent that is very, very good. Trey Simmons is a very quick 6-1 guard who can create his own shot and finish above the rim. He looks like a D1 guard; no one could stay in front of him. FB comes into the WLU game with a deceiving 7-5 record. They lost 3 games by a total of 10 points and they lost to Concord without 28 ppg Mike Montano, who has an injured wrist. They have mobile height in the high-flying Daniels and the nomadic Whippen brothers. They have 7 players shooting over 40% from three, averaging 39% as a team in addition to a 49% team FG%. Freshmen Finefrock from Ohio D1 Massillon Jackson entertained the crowd during the halftime of the women’s game by hitting numerous threes from all distances and points on the court. What perfect mechanics!
Their vulnerability is depth, as many players play over 30 minutes a game, especially without Montano. This team has speed, shooting, and height. They have the potential to be a very dangerous team in March, especially if Montano gets healthy.
The FB strategy involved adapting to the loss of 2-time player of the week Montano.

• PASSED – Spread the floor and have Simmons and Daniels attack the rim. Simmons was very impressive, He made difficult shots look easy and finished over 6-8 defenders. Like many D1 guards, he can create his own good shot.
• PASSED – Drive and kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. Finefrock lived up his pre-game warmup billing. He was deadly when he had an open look (until he got tired).
• 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.
• PASSED–Win the rebounding battle. FB got some offensive rebounds, especially in the first half and won the rebounding battle 44-37. Fatigue took its toll in the second half and they were less effective.
• FAILED – Continue to play an up-tempo style, which has been successful for FB. I can understand playing up-tempo against traditional half-court offenses. But doing this against WLU turns it into an open gym practice, which they love. They finally stopped pressing after about 13 minutes in the first half.

• FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. FB had 25 turnovers while forcing only 12 WLU turnovers. WLU got 32 points off turnovers to just 11 for FB, which is nearly all of the 23-point margin of victory.
• FAILED - Substitute frequently to reduce fatigue. FB got into an up-tempo game with WLU, where there was no time to rest on offense or defense. They even pressed WLU for the first 13 minutes of the game, which was a very puzzling decision for a team with a short bench. Simmons played the first 7.33 minutes without rest. By that time, he was exhausted, and his dominance started to wane. Due to lack of depth, FB was subbing after 3 or 4 minutes, but they could not afford to rest their starters long, which limited recovery from fatigue. IMHO, they were not giving players enough time on the bench to recover from fatigue.
• FAILED – Shoot their average FG %. FB shot 44% FG%, worse than their 49% average. They shot 33% from three, below their 39.4% average.

Keys to the WLU Game
FB was hurt by a freak eye injury to Simmons from a teammate late (1:47) in the first half. He did not return for the second half. However, FB kept playing very hard without him in the second half, which was commendable. Daniels had a great game.
WLU shortened the time between platoon changes and increased the intensity to a fever pitch! They were playing like mad attack dogs! Fans could feel the intense pressure on FB, making some fans glad that their playing days were over and they did not have to face this pressure. WLU was attacking on defense from all angles, creating tremendous stress. Typically, WLU plays about 2.5 to 3.5 minutes between shift changes. Today, WLU was changing shifts much earlier. See table below.

Playing Duration by Team and by Half

Team Statistic Time in Minutes	Half 1		Half 2
	WLU	Frostburg	WLU	Frostburg
Max Time before Player gets a rest	2.52 min	7.33 min	4.20 min	17.25 min
Average Playing Time per Player	1.72 min	3.33 min	2.13 min	3.57 min
Median Playing Time Per Player	1.78 min	3.47 min	1.82 min	3.00 min

FB also did not give their players much time on the bench to recover, as evidenced by their playing time minutes. (Note Simmons did not play the second half). See Table below.

Number	Player	*=Started game	minutes played	Points
10	McCarty,Zane	*	33	8
2	Daniel,DJ	*	32	30
1	Finefrock,Mitch	*	28	11
5	Whippen,Kyle	*	24	8
0	Burrows,Blake		21	9
3	Simmons,Trey	*	16	13
30	Meakin,Christopher		14	8
14	Slanina,Vilius		12	2
21	Walters,Brady		6	2
7	Kovich,Kyle		3	0
9	Bonds,Will		3	0
15	Cochran,Chris		3	0
33	McFarland,Max		3	0
24	Koehl,Will		1	3
22	Fenn,Aurek		1	0

I will remain puzzled by FB pressing WLU with such a short bench.

WLU was sharing the ball extremely well. WLU had a 2.0 assist to turnover ratio, with 24 assists and only 12 turnovers. They had assists on 57% of FG made, which is just below 90^th percentile for D1 at 59%. The WLU stat is deceptively low because WLU got many steals in the backcourt that led directly to layups.

The WLU transition from defense to offense is instantaneous. Late in the first half, Daniels broke away in the open court and hammered a dunk over WLU players. WLU immediately got the ball in bounds and Landon Butler went coast to coast for a layup at the other end while the FB bench was still whooping it up. Loved it. Last I checked layups and dunks still count 2 points. So many teams relax to celebrate after a dunk, and WLU makes you pay.

Our big men used better judgment in contesting shots. We also got some clean blocks under the rim.

We had great interior passing for easy layups.

WLU used very good judgment on taking threes. WLU shot 39% 3FG as a team and 51% FG overall. Their true shooting percentage was 62% (90^th percentile D1 is 58.9%). Their offensive rating (points per 100 possessions) was an outstanding 124 (90^th percentile D1 is 113).

Some examples of the great effort and hustle:

• Abdullah gets a defensive rebound in the first half and makes a great outlet pass to Landon Butler near half court. Landon attacks the rim on the dribble drive for a layup. The ball comes off the rim and Abdullah is there to pluck it out of the air and jam it home in one motion.
• When there was a loose ball, there were not one, but at often two WLU players diving on the floor for it, with another WLU player running nearby to get the pass from the floor.
• Players were continuing to dive for loose balls with 20 points lead late in the game!

Overall, this was a great victory over a very talented, well-coached team.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• We had some careless, routine, soft passes that FB intercepted. If we eliminate that issue and gain more situational awareness, we would have had only 8 or 9 turnovers.

[TopperNation]

I've been talking about this for years!!!! Ever since WL played NWMST in the elite eight, which seems like almost a decade ago, lol. I sometimes can't stand the "West Lib" way, where you continue to full court press even if the other team seems unfazed and is killing you on it. WL needs to be able to adjust at times and can't have the "this is what we do no matter what" attitude. You can go to half court traps, zones, 3 quarter press, corners...etc.

[Columbuseer]

It looked like Coach Lamberti didn't call off the trap until about 6-7 minutes remained. And no surprise, that's when the game stabilized again (and WLU kept the 4-5 point lead steady--i.e., trading buckets at times but not allowing DE to gain ground).

In my humble and uninformed opinion, Mike waited too long to call off the trap and guard straight-up. Once a team has gotten comfortable breaking it, all you're doing is putting yourself out of position on the next possession. DE made their comeback run by getting into a rhythm breaking the trap and getting free runs at the rim with superior athletes. If memory serves, there were many nights I can recall Howlett calling off the trap with most of the second half left to play. Trapping for the full first half makes enough sense (regardless of whether a team is scoring out of it, as DE was in the beginning of this game). At that point, you're trapping for the mental and physical toll it will take later in the game. But once the game starts to get late, if a team is comfortable breaking the trap and scoring with relative ease, it becomes a liability, and that's what seemed to be happening in the middle portion of the second half last night allowing DE to climb back into the game until WLU called it off with about 6+ minutes to play.

I agree that it was a prudent move to call off the press. I may be wrong, but didn't they also go to a zone for a few possessions around the same time? I thought it also confused the D&E offense for awhile. It reminded me of the VA State at IUP regional when Eric Meininger was playing years ago. VA State was killing us inside. Coach Huffman suggested that WLU call off press and go to a zone with about 8 minutes remaining. It stymied the VA State offense and WLU pulled out an improbable victory.

[Scrub]

• WLU needs to reduce the situations where the opponent gets open drives to the rim in transition.

It looked like Coach Lamberti didn't call off the trap until about 6-7 minutes remained. And no surprise, that's when the game stabilized again (and WLU kept the 4-5 point lead steady--i.e., trading buckets at times but not allowing DE to gain ground).

In my humble and uninformed opinion, Mike waited too long to call off the trap and guard straight-up. Once a team has gotten comfortable breaking it, all you're doing is putting yourself out of position on the next possession. DE made their comeback run by getting into a rhythm breaking the trap and getting free runs at the rim with superior athletes. If memory serves, there were many nights I can recall Howlett calling off the trap with most of the second half left to play. Trapping for the full first half makes enough sense (regardless of whether a team is scoring out of it, as DE was in the beginning of this game). At that point, you're trapping for the mental and physical toll it will take later in the game. But once the game starts to get late, if a team is comfortable breaking the trap and scoring with relative ease, it becomes a liability, and that's what seemed to be happening in the middle portion of the second half last night allowing DE to climb back into the game until WLU called it off with about 6+ minutes to play.