West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

Former Hilltopper Dalton Bolon just set a new world record for most 3-point shots made in 24 hours - 10,703!
He made 73% of his shots, so he actually attempted over 14,700 shots, which is one shot approximately every 6.8 seconds.
He did it to raise money for his WLU friend Trevor Cherry, who is battling stage 4 cancer. Dalton raised $23k to date.
The attached instagram link shows how you can donate.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUMqdoBjMbU/

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Davis & Elkins 2/4/26
WLU 111 – D&E 74

Davis & Elkins (DE) Preview
DE has 683 students (as of 2023). DE comes into the WLU game with a 7-13 record and 4-7 in MEC. They have lost some games recently due to injured players. DE seemed to be using one of the common recruiting templates to challenge WLU – tall, long, and/or quick athletic players who can shoot the three and attack the rim in transition. They have depth, as 8 players play >= 18 minutes a game. Okoroji and Starks both shoot >=40% from three. Evans (6-7 15.5 ppg), Gray (6-7 16.5 ppg) and Adamczyk (6-0 11.8 ppg) are double figure scorers, with Roach (6-2) and Okoroji (6-5) at least 8 ppg. They have the potential to be a dangerous team in March.

Davis & Elkins (DE) Game Plan
The DE strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Shoot their average. They shot slightly above their average, helped by some hot shooting in the last 5 minutes of the game, when they were down by almost 40 points.

Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game Stat
FG %	46%	46.7%
3 FG %	33.7%	35.3%
FT %	73.3%	75%

• PASSED– Use their height and athletic ability to get the ball inside and attack the WLU defense in the half-court offense. They had 40 points in the paint.
• PASSED – Refrain from attacking the rim unless a layup were available; instead, set up the offense.
• FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. DE had 25 turnovers while forcing 10 WLU turnovers.
• FAILED – Limit fatigue by subbing frequently. DE players play far too long before a sub, especially given that they were playing their 3^rd game in 5 days. In the first half, there were 7 instances where a player played > 5.5 minutes before getting a rest. There were instances of players playing 10.8 and 12.5 minutes before a sub in the first half. They were physically exhausted by the 15-minute mark of the second half and had to sub more players.
• FAILED – control the boards. WLU outrebounded DE 37-32. WLU won offensive rebounds 11-3.

Keys to the WLU Game
WLU’s offensive rating was an elite 120 (points per 100 possessions) compared to poor 83 for DE (D1 90^th percentile is 113).'

WLU forced 25 turnovers, while committing only 10 turnovers. WLU scored 26 points off turnover to just 4 for DE. It illustrated how extreme fatigure affects cognition and decision-making. Some D&E passes were bizarre passes to no one in particular.

WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently, and putting severe mental stress on DE. DE fatigue made them a step slow on defense, allowing easy scores by WLU.

A key factor was bench scoring. WLU had 66 bench points to just 36 for DE. In addition, WLU had an outstanding 59.2% True Shooting %, compared to 55% for DE. 90^th percentile in D1 is 58.9%.

WLU only had assists on 48% on the FGs. However, this is misleading, for WLU was intercepting the ball and scoring layups on turnovers. They were sharing the bell extremely well.

Areas for Improvement for WLU
Like Charleston, DE was quick to exploit size mismatches inside. However, WLU has improved in this aspect since the Charleston game.

[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 Davis & Elkins 2/4/26 Game 21
Statistic	Davis & Elkins	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	28	45	35	726	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	60	88	71	1482	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	12	10	31	374	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	16	13	24	499	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	6	11	11	221	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	17	34	30	636	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	3	11	12	242	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	29	26	25	532	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	32	37	37	774	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	12	16	20	415
Assists	15	22	19	393	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	25	10	12	260	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	6	6	2	52	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	5	15	12	259	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	10	25	20	430	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	4	26	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	40	66	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	8	9	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	10	26	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	36	66	65		N/A
Points	74	111	97.5	2047	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	21	21	21	21
Number of Possessions	89	93	82	1720	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.83	1.20	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.75	1.011	0.990	0.990	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	83	120	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	51.7%	57.4%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	55.2%	59.2%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	75.0%	76.9%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	46.7%	51.1%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	35.3%	32.4%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	51.2%	63.0%	60%	60%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	25	10	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-15	15	20	8.1	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	28.1%	10.8%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	50.0%	60.0%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.40	1.04	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	53.6%	48.9%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.60	2.20	1.51	1.51	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	72.5%	89.7%	70%	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	10.3%	27.5%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-37	37	17	-359	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Scrub]

That was certainly a surprising result after a very game Senators squad kept it a 4-point game when WLU visited Elkins back in January. I hope it's a sign that the Hilltoppers are growing and improving.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at WV Wesleyan (WVW) 2/7/26 WLU 110 – WVW 81

WV Wesleyan (WVW) Preview
WVW is a private school with about 950 undergraduate students. To remain afloat, they are accepting 95% of applicants and do NOT require ACT or SAT tests for admission. WVW comes into the WLU game at 2-18, and are losing by 20 points a game. They are mediocre shooters, averaging 42% FG and 33% on about 23 3FG attempts per game. However, they have some elite 3FG shooters in Jean-Baptiste 51%, Macijauskas 41%, Litton 37% and Cirovic 34%. Besides shooting, they are turnover prone at 16.5 turnovers per game. They only average 12.6 assists per game, led by Janciauskas at 2.9 assists per game. Their vulnerabilities appear to be turnovers and lack of quality depth, even though no one plays over 24 minutes a game and 10 players average over 12.6 minutes.

WV Wesleyan (WVW) Game Plan
The WVW strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – In the half court offense, rotate the ball rapidly and do not let the ball stick in order to get an open look shot.
• PASSED – Pack the defense inside and invite WLU to shoot from outside. WVW came out with various zone defenses. WLU shot 40 threes, which are more threes than is desirable. This helped WVW rest and slowed the game down as WLU took some time to get an open shot. Later, after WLU started cracking the zone defense, WVW went to man-to-man.
• PASSED – Play tight half-court defense. Fatigue, despite frequent subbing, ultimately caused them to get a step slow on defense in the last 4 minutes of the first half and the last 9 minutes of the second half.
• PASSED–Take the open three and try to score when WVW has numbers advantage after breaking the press. with WLU. This strategy worked in the first half. WLU only had a 4-point lead with 4 minutes left in the half, before WVW faded late in the first half from fatigue.
• FAILED – Shoot above their 3 FG average. Early in the game, Litton and Jean-Baptiste could not miss from three, making threes in transition after breaking the press. However, this was not to last. WLU tightened up their defense on Jean Baptiste, and WVW started missing open 3FG looks in transition, WVW finished shooting only 25% on 8-32 3FG.
• FAILED – Substitute frequently to reduce fatigue. They played starters far too long in the first half; four players played 7.47 minutes in the first half before going to the bench. At the 11-minute mark of the first, one starter played the rest of the first half and a second player played 8 minutes. The seeds of fatigue had been sown, resulting in a 11-point lead at the half. Three players played over 30 minutes for the game.
• FAILED –Win the rebounding stats. WLU won the rebounding battle 48-33 and won offensive rebounds 15-6.
• FAILED – Limit turnovers. WVW collapsed against the WLU pressure, committing 21 turnovers, of which 14 were steals. WLU scored 31 points off turnovers to only 11 for WVW.
• FAILED –Keep the WLU score under 80. WLU scored 110 points on 91 possessions. WLU attempted more FG, 78-64

Keys to the WLU Game
From the opening tip, as usual, WLU was playing with great intensity. On offense, WLU was very patient in rapidly passing the ball, until they got an open look. WLU’s offensive rating was an outstanding 120 (points per 100 possessions) compared to just 90 for WVW. WLU’s effective shooting % was 55.8% to 60% for WVW (90^th percentile d1 is 55.4%). Their true shooting % was 60% for WLU to 54% for WVW (90^th percentile d1 is 59%).

• IMHO, the difference in the game was West Liberty’s pressure forcing turnovers and creating fatigue. Fatigue lowered the shooting percentages of WVW, caused turnovers, allowed WLU to get easy scores in the second half., and caused tired WVW players to commit reaching fouls.
• WLU forced 21 turnovers on 23% of WVW’s possessions, of which 67% were live ball turnovers on 14 steals. WLU scored 1.48 points per opponent turnover, compared to 0.79 for WVW. WLU scored 31 points off turnovers to just 11 for WVW.
• WLU shared the ball very well. WLU had 73% of goals from assists. 90^th percentile for D1 is 59.8%.
• WLU was subpar from three, averaging 32 % for the game, despite getting many open looks. However, 4 players shot 40% or greater from three.
• WLU has quality depth. WLU played many different combinations of lineups, with no apparent drop-off in production. WLU averages 96 points per game, but their leading scorer averages only 13 points per game. Eight different players have been the leading scorer in games this season.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Initially, WLU was slow in getting the ball to the elbow which is a gap in the zone. This game was good experience against the zone. In the second half, WLU performed much better against the zone.
• WLU players need to be aware of opponents playing the passing lane to intercept a casual pass.

[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)
D1 values are used for comparison because similar D2 stats are not readily available.

WLU at WV Wesleyan 2/7/26 game 22
Statistic	WV Wesleyan	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	28	37	763	726	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	64	78	1560	1482	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	17	23	397	374	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	25	31	530	499	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	8	13	234	221	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	32	40	676	636	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	6	15	257	242	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	27	33	565	532	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	33	48	822	774	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	23	20	435	415
Assists	19	27	420	393	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	21	14	274	260	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	2	4	53	52	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	6	14	273	259	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	14	21	451	430	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	11	31			N/A
Points in the Paint	36	48			N/A
Second Chance Points	2	15			N/A
Fast Break Points	19	26			N/A
Bench Points	30	44			N/A
Points	81	110	2157	2047	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	21	22	22	22
Number of Possessions	90	91	78	1720	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.90	1.21	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.83	1.011	0.990	0.990	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	90	121	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	50.0%	55.8%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	54.0%	60.0%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	68.0%	74.2%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	43.8%	47.4%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	25.0%	32.5%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	62.5%	63.2%	60%	60%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	21	14	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-7	7	20	7.7	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	23.3%	15.4%	351%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	42.9%	66.7%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.79	1.48	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	67.9%	73.0%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.90	1.93	1.51	1.51	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	64.3%	84.6%	69%	69%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	15.4%	35.7%	30%	30%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-29	29	13	-278	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Scrub]

Initially, WLU was slow in getting the ball to the elbow which is a gap in the zone. This game was good experience against the zone. In the second half, WLU performed much better against the zone.

WLU does typically struggle a bit with a zone. And, man, there was a really ugly stretch in the middle of that game where WLU let a pretty bad team hang around. They better not get any ideas about letting Frostburg hang around on Wednesday. Frostburg has the firepower to pull the upset if WLU gets sloppy again.

[Columbuseer]

WLU does typically struggle a bit with a zone. And, man, there was a really ugly stretch in the middle of that game where WLU let a pretty bad team hang around. They better not get any ideas about letting Frostburg hang around on Wednesday. Frostburg has the firepower to pull the upset if WLU gets sloppy again.

Great points. I appreciate your well thought-out and mature insights. So many message boards are just a playground for narcissists.

I am also worried about Frostburg. At WL, they lost their leading scorer due to a freak eye injury. They play up-tempo, so I expect them to attack the rim in transition, rather than pull it out and run the offense.

I vacillate between which is the better strategy for teams against WLU.
1. If you attack the rim in transition, you can get easy scores or open looks from three at the risk of no offensive rebounds and more cumulative fatigue over the course of the game.
2.If one chooses to set up the offense even though one has numbers in transition. it relies on getting open looks in the half-court offense or getting WLU in foul trouble. It also somewhat delays the onset of fatigue. One needs to hope for a hot shooting night.

Coaches have to select the option that gives them the higher points per possession.

My guess, is if you have depth and athletic guys who can finish at the rim, choose option 1.
Otherwise option 2 may be more prudent.

[Scrub]

Really ugly start. Shades of how flat they looked in Richmond when they visited Union.

Wondering if they ought to call off the trap in the second half and just sit down and guard. Frostburg doesn't mind running and hasn't looked very phased by the trap.

I mentioned it on the board after the WVWC game--can't show up flat in Frostburg because they have the firepower to pull the upset (did it last year in this building). Gotta get something fixed during halftime.

(We do have to assume that Frostburg's 67% shooting will cool off a bit in the second half)

[Scrub]

A valiant second half effort by the Hilltoppers to pull it out. This one had all the makings of the annual bad conference loss: sluggish start by WLU; opponent who couldn't miss; press was ineffective; WLU free throw shooting was way off; league title on the line Saturday to look forward to; trap game; etc,.

That was a growth-inducing win to dig deep and pull it out when all the conditions for a Frostburg upset were present.

[boatcapt]

I'm sure we will soon see a collection of advanced stats that show that what looked like a really poor game for WLU was really a good game and how we where in the 90th Percentile when compared to D1 teams is a number of derivative advanced stats.

I'm a little bit simpler than that. As I've said all season, WLUs performance can be summed up by one simple stat...3 point shooting. Against Frostburg, in the first half we shot 30% and where down by 15 points...second half we shot 50% from 3 and scored 19 more than Frostburg, winning the game by 4 points.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

Against Fairmont, if we shoot 50% from 3, we win easily...we shoot 45-49% we win a skweaker...40-45% is a tossup and less than 40%, we lose.

[Columbuseer]

Really ugly start. Shades of how flat they looked in Richmond when they visited Union.

Wondering if they ought to call off the trap in the second half and just sit down and guard. Frostburg doesn't mind running and hasn't looked very phased by the trap.

I mentioned it on the board after the WVWC game--can't show up flat in Frostburg because they have the firepower to pull the upset (did it last year in this building). Gotta get something fixed during halftime.

(We do have to assume that Frostburg's 67% shooting will cool off a bit in the second half)

Great points. The WLU coaches did exactly what you suggested! Impressive analysis.
You really seem to understand the game at more than a superficial level.
I thought Frostburg had the game plan and the players to successfully attack the press in transition. Hats off to their coaches.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Frostburg (FB) 2/11/26 WLU 112- FB 108

Frostburg (FB) Preview
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 can stay in front of him. He missed most of the first meeting after a freak eye injury. FB comes into the WLU game with a deceiving 12-10 and 8-7 record in the MEC. They lost several close games. They lost most recently at Charleston 96-85, when Charleston shot 58% FG, 42% 3FG and 91% FT. They have mobile height in the high-flying Daniels and the nomadic Whippen brothers. They have 4 players shooting over 40% from three. Finefrock, K. Whippen, and Simmons are 3FG threats (#1, #5, and #3). The team has 6 players shooting over 37% 3FG. They average 37% 3FG as a team in addition to a 48% team FG%. They only average 12 turnovers per game. They average 92 points per game.
Their vulnerability is depth, as 4 players play over 28 minutes a game, and 7 players play over 15 minutes a game. The team has speed, shooting, and height. They have the potential to be a very dangerous team in March, especially if Montano gets healthy.

Frostburg (FB) Game Plan
I thought that FB had an excellent game plan. They had obviously spent considerable time analyzing the WLU trapping schemes and had adapted effective countermeasures.

• 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 made numerous layups and corner threes (a vulnerability of the WLU system), especially in the first half.
• PASSED – Spread the floor and have Simmons, Daniels or Whippen 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 and can score at all three levels with a hand in his face.
• PASSED – Drive and kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. Finefrock was deadly when he had an open look, shooting 4-7 threes in the first half (until he got tired in the second half and shot 2-7 threes).
• PASSED – Limit the turnover and points off turnover margin. FB had only 14 turnovers, only two above their average. They forced only 9 WLU turnovers. WLU got 20 points off turnovers to 16 for FB.
• FAILED –Win the rebounding battle. FB got few offensive rebounds, partially because they were shooting with no one under after breaking the press. Fatigue took its toll in the second half and they were even less effective.
• FAILED - Substitute frequently to reduce fatigue. FB got into a breakneck speed, up-tempo game with WLU, where there was no time to rest on offense or defense. Due to lack of depth, they could not afford to adequately rest their starters, which limited recovery from fatigue. IMHO, they were not giving players enough time on the bench to recover from fatigue.

##	Player	GS	MIN	FG	3PT	FT	A	TO	BLK	STL	PTS
03	Simmons,Trey	*	38	11-19	3-6	2-5	11	2	0	3	27
02	Daniel,DJ	*	34	6-10	1-5	8-10	4	1	1	1	21
01	Finefrock,Mitch	*	35	7-15	6-14	0-0	0	1	0	1	20
08	Whippen,Chase	*	33	5-9	2-3	6-6	5	4	2	1	18
05	Whippen,Kyle	*	26	7-8	0-1	4-4	2	3	3	1	18
00	Burrows,Blake		18	1-6	0-4	0-0	1	1	0	1	2
14	Slanina,Vilius		4	1-1	0-0	0-0	1	2	1	0	2
10	McCarty,Zane		12	0-1	0-1	0-0	0	0	0	0	0
TM	TEAM		0	0-0	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	0	0
	Totals	-	200	38-69	12-34	20-25	24	14	7	8	108

• FAILED – Shoot above their average. FB was far above their average in the first half, for they were getting easy shots in transition. However, once WLU stopped trapping in the second half, the fatigue and strong half-court defense of WLU took its toll. It was a tale of two halves, as shown by the table below:

Frostburg Stats	FG%	3FG%	FT%
Half 1	66.7%	57.1%	82.3%
Half 2	44.4%	20.0%	75.0%
Game	55.1%	35.3%	80.0%
Season	48%	37%	75.5%

Keys to the WLU Game
This game was a coaching chess match. It was an incredibly fast-paced game in the first half. WLU trapped full-court in the first half. FB was well-prepared and was attacking WLU in transition, either driving for layups or making threes from the corner. FB was limiting turnovers. WLU was scoring mainly in the half-court offense, but there were indications that WLU had some matchup advantages in the half-court game. However, FB was making threes while WLU was making twos. FB led 66-51 at the half.

In the second half, WLU abandoned the trapping, full-court defense and went to a tight full-court man-to-man, which eliminated many of the easy goals that FB got in the first half. On offense, WLU was still playing fast, especially in transition after WLU defensive rebounds. WLU was playing with great intensity.
Because WLU was no longer trapping, FB was playing their starters longer without subbing. IMHO, this was a mistake. The seeds of fatigue had been sown in the frenetic first half. Now WLU was playing an open gym game in transition.
FB kept pace for a while, extending the lead to 19 points and fighting off several runs that cut the lead to under 5 points. But WLU kept attacking. Fatigue was starting to take its toll on FB. Their 3FG% cratered to 20% after a 57% first half.

WLU had identified matchup vulnerabilities in FB in the first half. Now WLU was exploiting them. WLU were taking specific FB defenders to the rim at every opportunity, for FB was a step slow. This tactic generated numerous FB fouls, stopping the clock. It got the FB starters in foul trouble, which exacerbated their defensive vulnerability.
WLU was going to the rim for easy layups in transition, while getting and-ones in the half-court offense. WLU took their first lead of the game at 96-95 with 5:16 remaining. WLU took the lead for good at 102-101 with 4 minutes remaining, but never led by more than 4 for the rest of the game.

This game demonstrated that WLU can win in a half-court game without generating a large turnover margin against a team that is a powerful offensive force. FB had an offensive rating of 124 while WLU had an offensive rating of 129 (D1 90^th percentile is 113). WLU shot 39% 3FG versus 35% 3FG for FB, despite the torrid start for FB. But FB shot 74% 2FG, due to first half layups and difficult shots made by Simmons.

WLU played at an incredibly high level in many phases of the game, above D1 90^th percentile in offensive rating, points per possession, turnovers, offensive rebounding, turnover %, and assist-to-turnover ratio. This game was very beneficial, for it demonstrated that WLU can recover from a large deficit without depending on turnovers. Great victory over a talented, well-prepared team.

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU may need to examine why FB got so many easy shots against the trapping defense and make any necessary adjustments.
• Some players are dribbling too long in the lane without being aware of help defense coming from the blind side. Eight of WLU’s 9 turnovers were steals by FB.

[Columbuseer]

Back, by popular demand! LOL

FYI
D1 stats used for quantitative measures for comparison because D2 stats are not readily available.
Red cells are 20% below median D1 stat ; green cells are >= 90 Percentile

WLU at Frostburg 2/11/26 game 23
Statistic	Frostburg	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	38	37	763	800	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	69	78	1560	1638	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	20	29	397	426	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	25	41	530	571	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	12	9	234	243	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	34	23	676	699	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	7	18	257	275	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	30	25	565	590	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	37	43	822	865	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	26	16	435	451
Assists	24	17	420	437	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	14	9	274	283	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	7	2	53	55	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	8	9	273	282	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	9	14	451	465	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	17	20			N/A
Points in the Paint	48	56			N/A
Second Chance Points	8	20			N/A
Fast Break Points	17	27			N/A
Bench Points	4	39			N/A
Points	108	112	2157	2269	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	23	23	23	23
Number of Possessions	87	87	82	1897	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.24	1.29	1.20	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.92	1.103	0.996	0.996	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	124	129	120	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	63.8%	53.2%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	67.5%	58.3%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	80.0%	70.7%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	55.1%	47.4%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	35.3%	39.1%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	74.3%	50.9%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	14	9	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-5	5	20	7.9	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	16.1%	10.3%	332%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	88.9%	64.3%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.89	1.43	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	63.2%	45.9%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.71	1.89	1.54	1.54	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	62.5%	78.1%	71%	71%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	21.9%	37.5%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-4	4	17	-392	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Scrub]

WLU had identified matchup vulnerabilities in FB in the first half. Now WLU was exploiting them. WLU were taking specific FB defenders to the rim at every opportunity, for FB was a step slow. This tactic generated numerous FB fouls, stopping the clock. It got the FB starters in foul trouble, which exacerbated their defensive vulnerability.

I thought it was interesting that even the young man doing the play by play for Frostburg (who was very good by the way) identified and called out the fact that there was a particular Frostburg defender who was getting exploited every time down. Even rose-colored home-team glasses couldn't hide the fact that WLU knew who to go after in the half-court game.

Another interesting note from this one that wasn't mentioned:

Because the second half played out more as a half-court affair, Coach Lamberti basically stopped subbing in the normal WLU way. This resulted in 4 Hilltoppers basically playing 30 minutes (which rarely happens in the post-Dalton Bolon/Bryce Butler era of Hilltopper basketball. Montgomery, Williams, Spadafora, & L. Butler basically played the entire second half while Muldowney & Lattos rotated through that #5 spot. Clearly it was a combo that ended up working out, but it's interesting to note not only that WLU can play a half-court game (as you pointed out) but that they are willing to do so while abandoning the whole substitution pattern as well.