West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

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

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

[Columbuseer]

FYI

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

WLU 93- WU 81

Wheeling Univ. (WU) Preview
Wheeling University has around 1,100 undergrad and grad students. They are 11-5 and 6-3 in the MEC. They are a dangerous 3-pt. shooting team; #23, #12, and #2 all shoot over 40% from three. Also, starters #1 and #5 shoot over 36% from three. Three players average double figures, led by #1 (17.7), #10 (13.4), #4 (11.7), #13 (9), #5 (8.5), and #23 (8.4). They average about 12 turnovers and create about 9 steals per game. They typically are not a dominating rebounding team. Only seven players play over 14 minutes a game. #1 and #5 play over 30 minutes a game.
If they shoot much better than WLU, they could give WLU trouble. The key is for WLU to wear them out with pressure and generate turnovers.
WU Game Plan
The WU strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED– Limit the turnover margin. WU had an excellent 8 turnovers, while forcing WLU to 15 turnovers with quick hands and by overplaying the passing lanes. Ten of the 15 forced turnovers were steals. It is very rare that a WLU opponent wins the turnover margin. WU had a great defensive plan.
• Beat the WLU press by throwing over the press. After WLU shot the ball, a WU player would sprint downcourt to get a long pass for a layup. They had obviously found a vulnerability on video.
• PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their athletic players and kick out to their elite 3-point shooters.
• PASSED– Win the rebounding battle, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. WU won the offensive rebounding battle 12-7, even though WLU outrebounded them overall 41-32.
• FAILED– Shoot near their average.

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

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

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

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

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

Areas for Improvement for WLU

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

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

[Columbuseer]

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

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

[Columbuseer]

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

Team Stats (3-11, 2-8)

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

PP Game Plan
The PP strategy seemed to be:

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

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

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

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

Some keys to the victory:

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

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

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• WLU did not generate a positive turnover margin, and both teams had 15 turnovers. The quick hands of PP were stripping the ball when dribbling in traffic.
• At times, WLU was slow in closing out and contesting the three. Based on NBA studies on 3-point shooting, WLU needs to get within 6 feet of shooter in order to reduce their 3-point %.

[Scrub]

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

[boatcapt]

OT: Howlett update.

IU-Indy stands at 5-16 on the season. Team has broke 100 three times thus far. As a team, they are shooting .310 from 3.

They don't appear to have quality depth.

This will be the first time Howlett has finished the regular season below .500.

[Columbuseer]

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

WVU vs WV State 1/19/26 Game 16
Statistic	WV State	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	31	38	35	556	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	73	83	71	1138	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	16	31	283	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	22	21	24	382	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	7	16	10	166	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	27	36	30	487	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	12	18	12	188	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	29	31	24	388	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	41	49	36	576	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	17	19	21	330
Assists	18	24	19	300	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	23	19	13	200	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	5	2	2	30	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	6	12	13	212	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	19	23	22	352	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	10	28	N/A		N/A
Points in the Paint	48	44	N/A		N/A
Second Chance Points	8	20	N/A		N/A
Fast Break Points	23	14	N/A		N/A
Bench Points	21	52	65		N/A
Points	84	108	96.5	1544	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	16	16	16	16
Number of Possessions	94	93	82	1318	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.90	1.16	1.17	1.17	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.88	0.989	0.991	0.991	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	90	116	117	117	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	47.3%	55.4%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	50.8%	58.5%	59%	59%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	68.2%	76.2%	74%	74%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	42.5%	45.8%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	25.9%	44.4%	34%	34%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	52.2%	46.8%	60%	60%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	23	19	13	13	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-4	4	21	9.5	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	24.6%	20.4%	15%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	31.6%	52.2%	60%	60%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.53	1.22	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	58.1%	63.2%	54%	54%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.78	1.26	1.50	1.50	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	61.7%	72.1%	68%	68%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	27.9%	38.3%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-24	24	16	-248.81	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs WV State 1/19/26
WLU 108 – WV State 84

WV Stat (WVS) Preview
WVS has about 3,458 students (2023). WV State is a talented, athletic team that has been struggling after the tragic death of their leading scorer Ishamel Smith. They have five double-figure scorers. At 6-10, #14 is an inside scoring and rebounding threat. #1, #7 and #11 are excellent three-point shooter. Their bench goes 9 deep, who play between 19.8 and 30.3 minutes a game.
WLU must shoot well, limit the WV State rebounding advantage, and tire out their shooters to limit their minutes and/or effectiveness. WLU must avoid foul trouble; else there will be serious matchup issues, as WV State is a tall, athletic team. They won their last game over Davis and Elkins. I expect them to attack the rim in transition, if they break the press.

Team Stats

Team Stats (5-9, 2-5)

Overall Team Statistics
Statistic	West Virginia St.	Opponents
Scoring
Total Points	1134	1211
Points Per Game	81.0	86.5
Scoring Margin	-5.5	--
Shooting
FG: Made-Attempted	387-914	442-956
FG: Percentage	.423	.462
FG: Per Game	27.6	31.6
3PT: Made-Attempted	111-342	119-377
3PT: Percentage	.325	.316
3PT: Per Game	7.9	8.5
FT: Made-Attempted	249-355	208-300
FT: Percentage	.701	.693
FT: Per Game	17.8	14.9
Rebounding
Total	534	609
Per Game	38.1	43.5
Margin	-5.4	--
Assists
Total	160	214
Per Game	11.4	15.3
Turnovers
Total	174	174
Per Game	12.4	12.4
Margin	0.0	--
Assist/Turnover Ratio	0.9	1.2
Points Off Turnovers	14.0	15.1
Steals
Total	83	94
Per Game	5.9	6.7
Blocks
Total	63	53
Per Game	4.5	3.8
Attendance
Total	3336	1423
Per Game	9-371	4-356

WVS Game Plan
The WVS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Attack WLU inside with their talented tall, athletic athletes,
• PASSED – Attack the rim in transition or kick out for threes,
• PASSED – Limit the WLU inside game with their tall, athletic players. They blocked 5 shots, and altered shots inside, until fatigue limited their effectiveness.
• PASSED– Shoot near their average. They also made 7 threes, which is near their average of 7.9,

WVS Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	42.3%	42.5%
3FG%	32.5%	25.9%
FT%	70.1%	68.2%

• 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 49-41 and offensive rebounds 18-12, as fatigue again played a role.
• FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. WVS had 23 turnovers (12.4 season avg.). Although WLU had an uncharacteristic 19 turnovers, 7 of these occurred in the last 4.5 minutes of the game with the WLU lead at 27 and after the bench had been cleared. WLU dominated points off turnovers 28-10.

Keys to the WLU Game
WVS has tall, athletic teams with good 1-on-1 skills, strong guards, and several elite three-point shooters. However, WVS has been depleted by injuries for this game; Two starters, 6-10 Toussaint and 3-pt. shooter Shull, were not dressed. In addition, they lost Harris, their leading scorer, in the first two minutes of the game. That put them at a significant disadvantage.
The “second platoon” started the first shift at the beginning of the first and second halves, with 3 freshmen, a sophomore and a junior. WLU wanted to use shorter shifts of approximately 2-2.5 minutes, but the lack of stoppage in play forced the second platoon to play over 5 minutes to start the game, which affected the subsequent substitution strategy. It is becoming evident there is tremendous balance among11-12 players. To date, seven different players have attained leading scoring honors for a game.
Opponents can never be sure of who they need to prepare for when the game starts. WVS 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. WLU led 50-42 at the half based on outstanding 3-point shooting.
Due to injuries that limited depth, WVS was not substituting frequently. WVS starters played the first 6,12,12,9 and 19 minutes respectively, before getting a rest in the first half. Like Glenville and CU before them, WVS played their starters too long without subbing. In the second half, this strategy proved to be their undoing.
In the first 1:31 of the second half, WLU extended the lead from 8 to 15 points. WVS was getting a step slow on defense and offense. The lead varied between 13 and 18 points for the next 6 minutes. By the 11:46 mark, the margin had grown to 20. WVS was clearly was clearly suffering from exhaustion. The lead grew to 29 by the 6:00 mark. WLU started putting in new players at about 4 minutes and they were quite rusty in their play.

Some keys to the victory:

• WLU played excellent half-court defense against the talented WVS team, forcing them into difficult shots, while avoiding unnecessary fouls.
• WLU executed their half-court offense very effectively.
• WLU had an amazing 63% of goals from assists (90^th percentile D1 is 59.6%). WLU made some great interior passes. They did a great job in finding the open shooter.
• WLU shot 44.4% from three (16-36), far above their 34% season average. This compensated for the low 2FG% of only 46.8% (it was much lower until WVS fatigue allowed for uncontested shots at the rim in the second half).
• WLU had a good offensive rating 116 points per 100 possessions (90^th percentile D1 is 113), compared to a mediocre 90 offensive rating for WVS. The WLU stat is deceptive due to a rash of 7 turnovers in the last 4 minutes after the bench was cleared, which reduced the rating from 125 to 116.
• WLU had a 58.5% true shooting percentage, near the D1 90^th percentile of 59%.
• WLU shot a good 76% 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

• WLU allowed more long passes behind the trapping defense than usual, which resulted in some easy baskets.
• At times, WLU was slow in closing out and contesting the three. Based on NBA studies on 3-point shooting, WLU needs to get within 6 feet of shooter in order to reduce their 3-point %.

[boatcapt]

WLU beat WVS comfortably last night, 108-84.

Suddenly, WLU has started hitting it's 3's. Micro snapshot of the last 6 halves. WLU shot .266 the first three halves (all of the Glenville game and the first half of the Concord game) and we outscored our opponent by 10 points (131-121). The last three halves (2nd half of the Concord game and both half of the WVS game), WLU shot .511 from three over that stretch and outscored our opponent by 54 points (170-116).

So the question is, is this a hot streak or is this what we should expect moving forward (well maybe not .511, but .480-.500)? Was the first 14 games just growing pains and the team "gets it" now?

Like it or don't, what separates WLU from being a merely good team and a great one is 3 point shooting percentage. Are there other statistical areas that are important? Sure, but at WLU the pater familias is 3 point shooting %. Always has been...probably always will be.

[Scrub]

One thing I was particularly impressed with this game was the press. It was clear Concord was having a ton of trouble getting into any kind of offensive rhythm in that game. And I think it was because the press was unpredictable this time around--WLU seemed to be varying its press tactics possession-by-possession. Sometimes they were trapping on the inbound catch (as they traditionally have under Crutch & Howlett). But other times they allowed the ballhandler to think he wasn't getting trapped and then sprung a trap on him. Once the ballhandler got about 15-20 feet up the court, a second WLU defender would suddenly leave his man and institute a trap. The unpredictability--am I getting trapped on the catch, trapped 20 feet from now, or not at all--seemed to seriously impact the Mountain Lion ballhandlers. Overall, that seemed like a really effective wrinkle to the press.

[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.