West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[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.

[Columbuseer]

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Davis & Elkins (DE) 12/21/25 WLU 101- D&E 97

Davis & Elkins (DE) Game Plan
DE has 683 students (as of 2023). DE comes into the WLU game with a 5-6 record and 2-2 in MEC. They 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 Hampton both shoot >=40% from three. Evans (6-7 17ppg), Gray (6-7 16 ppg) and Adamczyk (6-0 11 ppg) are double figure scorers, with Roach (6-2) and Okoroji (6-5) at 9 ppg. This team is just learning to play together. They have the potential to be a dangerous team in March.

The DE strategy seemed to be:
• 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 – Limit the turnover margin. DE had 16 turnovers while forcing 14 WLU turnovers.
• PASSED– Use their height and athletic ability to get the ball inside and attack the WLU defense in the half-court offense.
• PASSED – Substitute frequently to reduce fatigue. DE limited the continuous play over 6 minutes (max of 8 minutes) to just 2 players in the first half and 3 players (max of 13 minutes for Gray) in the second half. Their substitution strategy was probably the best from opponents in quite a while, although they still got very tired.
• PASSED – Shoot their average FG %. DE shot 50%, better than their 46% average. They were helped by numerous finishes at the rim. They were deadly from 10 feet and closer. DE shot 33% 3FG (avg 33%) for the game. After shooting 50% (5-10) threes in the first half, they cratered to 18% (2-11) in the second half (probably due to fatigue).
• FAILED – control the boards. WLU outrebounded DE 22-19.

Keys to the WLU Game
This had to be a very disappointing loss for DE. They did almost everything right to beat WLU. Unfortunately, WLU’s offensive rating was an outstanding 122 (points per 100 possessions) compared to an excellent 109 for DE.
WLU played with great effort, subbing frequently, and putting severe mental stress on DE. DE fatigue made them a step slow on defense, foul more frequently and reduced their foul shooting, especially in the 2nd half. WLU scored 8 more points off turnovers. In addition, WLU shot 34 FTs to 25 for DE.
There were times around the 15-minute mark of the 2nd half, where it seemed like WLU was on the verge of breaking the game open. But inopportune WLU turnovers and transition baskets by DE stemmed the WLU tide.
Surprisingly, WLU won the rebounding battle against the taller DE squad 22-19.
A key factor was bench scoring. WLU had 49 bench points to just 25 for DE. In addition, WLU had an incredible 64% True Shooting %, compared to 58% for DE. 90th percentile in D1 is 58.9%.
IMHO in the last 4 minutes, WLU had much more energy when compared to DE.


Areas for Improvement for WLU
• Interior passing success relies on the both the sender and receiver. The sender has to put the ball in a position where only the receiver can get it, and the receiver has to position his body so that the opponent cannot touch the pass without fouling.
• Players need to be cautious dribbling the ball inside in traffic. Often, there are a plethora of long armed opponents, who can deflect the ball.
• WLU needs to reduce the situations where the opponent gets open drives to the rim in transition.

[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 Davis & Elkins 1/3/25
Statistic	D&E	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
Factor	0.44	0.44	0.44	0.44
FGM	36	35	34	342	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	72	64	70	703	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	18	23	31	181	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	25	34	22	221	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	7	8	11	108	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	21	23	32	324	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	10	10	12	118	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	19	22	24	244	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	29	32	36	362	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	23	20	20	198
Assists	18	14	19	194	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	16	14	14	136	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	3	1	2	17	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	8	12	13	133	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	14	16	24	236	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	11	19	N/A	N/A	N/A
Points in the Paint	54	54	N/A	N/A	N/A
Second Chance Points	16	5	N/A	N/A	N/A
Fast Break Points	18	16	N/A	N/A	N/A
Bench Points	25	49	65	N/A	N/A
Points	97	101	95.9	959	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	12	11	10	10
Number of Possessions	89	83	82	818	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Avg. Possessions per Game
Pts per Possession	1.09	1.22	1.17	1.17	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	93.3%	95.2%	0.98	0.98	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	109	122	117	117	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	54.9%	60.9%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	58.4%	64.0%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	72.0%	67.6%	82%	82%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	50.0%	54.7%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	33.3%	34.8%	33%	33%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	56.9%	65.9%	62%	62%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	16	14	14	14	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-2	2	21	10.0	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	18%	17%	17%	17%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	57.1%	75%	57%	57%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.79	1.19	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	50%	40%	57%	57%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.13	1.00	1.43	1.43	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	66%	69%	68%	68%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	31%	34%	30%	30%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-4	4	-18	-181.89	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Scrub]

Also curious what was up with Xavier Harris. He had been starting the few games prior to the break and only logged 3+ minutes today (checking in for the first time at the 37-minute mark of the first half). His defense was missed. Not sure if it's an injury issue, an illness issue, a doghouse issue, or what.

[Scrub]

Made that a lot harder than it needed to be (men and women both). The defense is apparently still on winter break. And I can't recall the last time a WLU team was bested in the assist-to-turnover ratio column. Lucky to get out of there with a win. Hopefully that shakes off the rust, and they can use Wednesday as a momentum builder into a big one next weekend at Joe Retton.

[boatcapt]

Great point, Boat. Amidst the Bryce Butlers of recent vintage (bigger guys who could both play back-to-basket or stretch and shoot the 3-ball), it's easy to forget that Crutch's early teams often relied on CJ Hester or Keene Cockburn types of guys who were never planning to leave the paint. Crutch did certainly have guys like Chris Morrow or John Wolosinczuk (and obviously Bonifant) who were those stretch bigs who could shoot it and did shoot it a lot, Crutch also wasn't afraid to bring in the Hester-Cockburn types who were not built to stretch anything. They were living in the low block. And given that Lamberti was, himself, one of those types, it might make sense that he would favor that version of Crutchball. Good thought.

Just as Seger is the architipe 3-point WLU assassin, Butler is the architipe for the "do everything that needs to be done" WLU player. Same with WLU Point Guards as embodied by Cedric Harris and Dave Dennis. The whole position less team top to bottom is kind of a new'ish thing for WLU (late Crutch and all of Howlett?). While WLU players have always been well rounded and could do multiple things when need, they did have specializations. I sort of see a return to that under Mike...players who can do a number of things when needed but focused on a specific task. It would be great if we had seven legit .400 3-point shooters but we don't (at least not right now). Soooo...focus on the other things you can do to help the team win. If that's getting rebounds and putting it back for a pinchy little 2-pointer then that's what you should do (you'll get to 20, is swear...I've done the math...just to need to make 3 more put backs!)..if it's "just" playing hard D and hammering anyone who dares roll down the lane...do it!

I still remember the WLU player who just hammered an All-American player in the NCAA tourney. Got that guy sooo out of his game that he was a non-factor and WLU won the game. Nothing in the stat line about what he did but he was just as responsible for the W as any of WLU's 3-point assassins.

Back to this years team. WLU is "suffering" from "first world problems." Bottom line, we are 9-2 which MANY teams in the nation would give their left nut to be. Bottom line, even though we have flaws and could be better, we are really, REALLY good...maybe not "best in the nation" good (yet??)...but still really good. Will we be truly great (as in competing for a NC)? Yet to be seen. First "problem" is beating Fairmont and Concord...stout tests and we'll need every player to "know their role and shut their mouth" (channeling my inter Hunter Hurst Helmsley).

[boatcapt]

FYI
A d2 team that shoots at least 50% FG would be ranked no lower than 15th in country or 95th percentile, based on ytd stats this year.

Currently, wlu effective fg percentage is 55.5% and 38th among 300 plus d2 teams.

I wonder if moving 3 pt line has lowered 3fg % overall? Have not seen any studies.
The upsides of the three are numerous and obvious.
The downside of excessive threes are:
- fewer fouls committed by opponent so star opposing player unlikely to get in foul trouble
- tendency for longer rebounds can lead to opponent fast breaks
- if an unanticipated three, teammates have insufficient time to get in rebounding position.
- the distance of a three leaves so little margin for error in physical shot mechanics

BTW
Bonifant remains highest career 3fg % of all time in d1 or d2 at 52.5%

I won't be so bold as to call the moving of the 3-point line the "West Liberty Rule" or even the "Bonifant Rule," but when you have a team approaching .500 from three and a player clearing the ,500 Mark for his career, you've got to wonder!

It would have been neat if the 3 point line moved during his 4 years. As I recall Seager wasn't a foot right on the line 3-point shooter. He was often 2 foot clear of the line when he elevated!

We obviously think of Seger as a 3-point assassin...because he was. But we forget the changes that he undertook during his four years. He basically went from a spot-up one trick pony to a true "position less" player who could do it all when needed.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
A d2 team that shoots at least 50% FG would be ranked no lower than 15th in country or 95th percentile, based on ytd stats this year.

Currently, wlu effective fg percentage is 55.5% and 38th among 300 plus d2 teams.

I wonder if moving 3 pt line has lowered 3fg % overall? Have not seen any studies.
The upsides of the three are numerous and obvious.
The downside of excessive threes are:
- fewer fouls committed by opponent so star opposing player unlikely to get in foul trouble
- tendency for longer rebounds can lead to opponent fast breaks
- if an unanticipated three, teammates have insufficient time to get in rebounding position.
- the distance of a three leaves so little margin for error in physical shot mechanics

BTW
Bonifant remains highest career 3fg % of all time in d1 or d2 at 52.5%

[Scrub]

When you are struggling from 3 like WLU is, PIP is a logical high percentage alternative. Roughly speaking the 3 point vs 2 point shot break line is 33.3% and 50%. So if you are shooting less than .333 (like WLU is) from 3 and can shoot .500 from 2, it is more effective to shoot from 2. THAT's where WLU finds itself right now.

I see the evolution of the WLU Style under Lamberti as more of a recreation of the way Crutch did it WAY back in the early days. Did those teams shoot the 3 and at a high efficiency level? Yes, but they also routinely had a fair number of bigger bodied, inside the 3 point line players that did the grunt work (put backs, rebounds, short jumpers, diving on the ground for lose balls, etc) that made the team go. Could they hit the occasional 3 in transition? Yep, and they where expected to. But that wasn't their primary function. A prime example of this is Lamberti himself...Over the course of his four years, he took 138 3-point shots but if memory serves, almost all where meaningful. Heck, during his senior season he actually outshot Bonifant from three .521 to .498...Buuuuttt Mike took only 48 3-point shots while Seager took 223 (WOW!!).

Great point, Boat. Amidst the Bryce Butlers of recent vintage (bigger guys who could both play back-to-basket or stretch and shoot the 3-ball), it's easy to forget that Crutch's early teams often relied on CJ Hester or Keene Cockburn types of guys who were never planning to leave the paint. Crutch did certainly have guys like Chris Morrow or John Wolosinczuk (and obviously Bonifant) who were those stretch bigs who could shoot it and did shoot it a lot, Crutch also wasn't afraid to bring in the Hester-Cockburn types who were not built to stretch anything. They were living in the low block. And given that Lamberti was, himself, one of those types, it might make sense that he would favor that version of Crutchball. Good thought.

[boatcapt]

You might ultimately get your wish under Lamberti's watch, Boat.

A. He seems to want to recruit bigger guys than Howlett or Crutch ever did (at least at their time at WLU). WLU's current roster has more guys over 6'5" than any of Crutch's or Howlett's teams ever did.

B. If you watch Lamberti's postgame pressers (that they do after home games here at the ASRC), he is frequently going straight to the Points in the Paint stat to identify the success or failure of his team. He wants to win the PIP stat and he wants to downplay overtaking the 3-ball (another of his bugaboos in the postgame pressers is pointing out that the team is settling for too many threes).

So if Lamberti gets to continue to put his own spin on "The System" you may yet get to see the more well-developed inside game you're looking for. Now, it won't come with traditional post players with bodies like Damir Brooks of IUP or anything like that, but you may still get an emphasis on paint production that was seemingly not a point of emphasis for Howlett.

When you are struggling from 3 like WLU is, PIP is a logical high percentage alternative. Roughly speaking the 3 point vs 2 point shot break line is 33.3% and 50%. So if you are shooting less than .333 (like WLU is) from 3 and can shoot .500 from 2, it is more effective to shoot from 2. THAT's where WLU finds itself right now.

I see the evolution of the WLU Style under Lamberti as more of a recreation of the way Crutch did it WAY back in the early days. Did those teams shoot the 3 and at a high efficiency level? Yes, but they also routinely had a fair number of bigger bodied, inside the 3 point line players that did the grunt work (put backs, rebounds, short jumpers, diving on the ground for lose balls, etc) that made the team go. Could they hit the occasional 3 in transition? Yep, and they where expected to. But that wasn't their primary function. A prime example of this is Lamberti himself...Over the course of his four years, he took 138 3-point shots but if memory serves, almost all where meaningful. Heck, during his senior season he actually outshot Bonifant from three .521 to .498...Buuuuttt Mike took only 48 3-point shots while Seager took 223 (WOW!!).