West Liberty Hilltopper Basketball

[Columbuseer]

FYI
For those hordes of members of this board who are interested in data analytics… :-)
D1 90^th percentile 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 vs Concord 2/21/26 game 26
Statistic	Concord	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	31	40	857	897	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	69	77	1756	1756	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	18	483	483	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	22	20	645	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	5	11	263	263	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	20	32	752	752	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	15	8	291	291	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	21	23	645	645	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	36	31	936	936	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	18	17	490	490
Assists	15	19	467	467	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	24	12	311	311	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	6	2	58	58	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	7	13	301	301	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	12	24	496	496	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	11	44			N/A
Points in the Paint	50	56			N/A
Second Chance Points	22	17			N/A
Fast Break Points	6	39			N/A
Bench Points	36	49			N/A
Points	82	109	2460	2460	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	26	26	26	26
Number of Possessions	88	90	79	2060	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.94	1.21	1.19	1.19	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.90	0.955	0.990	0.990	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	94	121	119	119	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	48.6%	59.1%	59%	59%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	52.1%	63.5%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	68.2%	90.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	44.9%	51.9%	51%	51%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	25.0%	34.4%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	53.1%	64.4%	63%	63%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	24	12	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-12	12	20	7.1	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	27.4%	13.4%	393%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	58.3%	54.2%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	0.92	1.83	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	48.4%	47.5%	52%	52%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.63	1.58	1.50	1.50	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	72.4%	60.5%	70%	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	39.5%	27.6%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-27	27	13	-330	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Concord Univ (CU) 2/21/26


Concord Univ. Preview – 2/21/26
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. #5 and #25 are both 6-8, #4 is 6—6, and their guards are often over 6 ft. Unfortunately, their 6-8 star player and leading scorer, #33, is injured and is out for the year, which has resulting in many losses. They are dominant inside. Their bench goes 8 deep.
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 has been 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. When a size mismatch occurs on a WLU switch, get the ball inside to their teammate.
• PASSED –Dominate the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage, especially limiting offensive rebounds by WLU. CU won offensive rebounds 15-8, and got 22 second chance points to 17 for WLU. CU had 36 rebounds to 31 for WLU.
• FAILED – Shoot above their average. CU shot significantly worse than their average in FT% and 3FG%.

Concord Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	44.4%	44.9%
3FG%	33.3%	25%
FT%	77.4%	68.2%

• FAILED – Limit the turnover margin. CU had 24 turnovers (13 season avg.) while forcing only 12 WLU turnovers. WLU had 13 steals and scored 44 points off 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. Concord started two 6-8 and one 6-6 agile, tall players.
WLU had a “shock and awe” blackout, where CU was totally unprepared for the pressure at the beginning of the game, committing turnovers in rapid succession. At the 15-minute mark, WLU was on pace to score 152 points for the game.
To their credit, CU closed the gap to 4 points, due to:

• Outstanding defensive plays and blocked shots
• Getting alley oops while attacking in transition
• Timely shooting
• Some missed shots by WLU early in the shot clock with little rebounding presence

CU was running with WLU and attacking the rim in transition, which was sowing the seeds of fatigue. At the 2:32 mark, WLU led by 6. By the end of the first half, WLU led by 15 at 56-41.
In the second half, WLU started attacking the rim inside, as the CU players were getting a step slow. CU was running plays and making difficult shots after expending much effort and time. WLU would reply with a quick layup on a back-door cut against the overplaying CU defense. The lead varied from 16 to 20 points for much of the half, until a final spurt led to the 109-82 final score.
WLU had an elite offensive rating of 121, compared to 94 for CU (90^th percentile D1 is 113). WLU had an elite 63.5% true shooting percentage compared to 52.1% for CU (90^th percentile for D1 is 58.9%). WLU forced 24 turnovers (15 in the first half), while committing just 12 turnovers (90^th percentile D1 is 10.4). WLU forced turnovers on 22% of CU possessions, WLU had a 1.58 assist-to-turnover ratio to 0.63 for CU (90^th percentile for D1 is 1.487)

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Improve awareness of opponents on breakaways by WLU. On occasion, WLU had the ball stripped or blocked from behind, just before attempting a layup.
• WLU could benefit from cradling the ball better on inside drives, where opponents have to slap an arm to get a deflection.

[Columbuseer]

FYI Myles Montgomery named MEC player of week last week.
https://hilltoppersports.com/news/20...spx?print=true

[Columbuseer]

FYI
For those interested in data analytics…
D1 90^th percentile 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 Glenville 2/18/26 game 25
Statistic	Glenville	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	28	31	857	826	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	74	64	1756	1692	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	15	24	483	459	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	21	30	645	615	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	9	9	263	254	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	27	25	752	727	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	9	9	291	282	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	22	34	645	611	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	31	43	936	893	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	24	21	490	469
Assists	15	12	467	455	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	15	17	311	294	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	7	2	58	56	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	9	7	301	294	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	17	15	496	481	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	23	24			N/A
Points in the Paint	36	42			N/A
Second Chance Points	10	17			N/A
Fast Break Points	2	4			N/A
Bench Points	20	44			N/A
Points	80	95	2460	2365	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	25	25	25	25
Number of Possessions	89	85	79	1975	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	0.90	1.12	1.20	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.93	0.906	0.994	0.994	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	90	112	120	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	43.9%	55.5%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	48.1%	61.5%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	71.4%	80.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	37.8%	48.4%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	33.3%	36.0%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	40.4%	56.4%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	15	17	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	2	-2	19	7.5	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	16.8%	20.0%	394%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	52.9%	46.7%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	1.35	1.60	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	53.6%	38.7%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	1.00	0.71	1.55	1.55	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	71.0%	79.1%	70%	70%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	20.9%	29.0%	31%	31%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-15	15	13	-317	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU at Glenville State (GS) 2/18/26

Glenville State Preview – 2/18/26 Waco Center

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 have long, tall forwards and a bulky, strong center who is hard to defend. They play excellent defense. Glenville has 5 double figure scorers. Nos. 0, 23, 22,12 and 1 are excellent 3-pt shooters. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, so they may be vulnerable to fatigue.
Glenville is 7-1 in the last 8 games, losing only to Fairmont State. They are 10-6 in the MEC and 16-8 overall. They are a dangerous team, with the roster composition to defeat WLU.
WLU must avoid a cold shooting night, rebound well, generate turnovers and cause fatigue in Glenville. If Glenville breaks the press, I expect them to attack the rim to take open threes from the corner in transition.

Glenville State (GS) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. GS had 15 turnovers (11.7 season avg.). WLU had 17 turnovers, many of them unforced on bad passes in the half-court offense.
• FAILED – Attack the rim in transition or kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters. GS missed numerous shots at the rim and shot below their average from 3FG.
• FAILED – Shoot their average. GS shot below their average in FG% and 3FG%.

Glenville Stat	Season Avg	WLU Game
FG%	47.7%	37.8%
3FG%	37.7%	33.3%
FT%	71%	71.4%

• FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite their size advantage, WLU won the rebounding battle 43-31, as fatigue played a role.

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 that there is no longer more than 1 pushover in the league. GS has an impressively athletic team.
GS was packing the defense to stop the WLU inside game, and was leveraging their height with 7 blocks. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the three and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. WLU was playing without Spadafora, due to the flu.
WLU has added an additional dimension to their offense. I first noticed this trend in the recent Frostburg game. WLU has greatly increased their movement without the ball in the half-court offense, forcing the opponent to work very hard in their half-court defense. As a result, GS was often just a step late in defending WLU. When a WLU player had a GS player on his hip, WLU took their opponent to the rim, drawing contact and fouls. In addition, WLU is displaying more discipline in avoiding silly fouls. The result is a significant free throw disparity. WLU played excellent defense.
WLU had a 1-point lead with 7:12 left in the first half. GS was expending tremendous energy defending the WLU motion offense and moving against the WLU trapping defense. GS starters had played the first 9 to 12 minutes without a sub, which was ill-advised if one is trying to avoid fatigue. GS was showing signs of cracking. After some back-and-forth scores, a 3-point lead at the 4:11 mark swelled in 3 minutes to a 19-point WLU lead, primarily due to a rash of GS turnovers, easy WLU scores, and missed GS shots.
After the intermission, GS had recovered some energy, and made some runs, cutting the lead to 7 points at the 10:27 mark. However, WLU steadily rebuilt their lead to 17 over the next 7 minutes. GS was very fatigued, causing them to miss easy shots.
WLU had a sloppy passing game, which lowered their offensive rating to 112 compared to 90 for GS (90^th percentile D1 is 113). WLU had an elite 61.5% true shooting percentage compared to 48.1% for GS (90^th percentile for D1 is 58.9%). WLU forced 15 turnovers while committing 17 turnovers due to careless passing (90^th percentile D1 is 10.4).

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• Strive to reduce the bad passes. Opponents are giving WLU players driving the baseline the impression that the corner teammate is open. When the player leaves his feet, opponents get in the passing lane and intercept the pass to the corner. Fairmont was the first team to use this tactic.
• Players getting the ball at the foul line with their back to the basket are dribbling excessively in a crowded area, which causes ball deflections and turnovers from defenders coming from the blind side.

[Columbuseer]

FYI
Something for the data analytics types...
D1 90^th percentile 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 vs Fairmont 2/14/26 game 24
Statistic	Fairmont	WLU	WLU Season Avg	WLU Season Totals	2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison
FGM	34	26	763	826	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FGA	70	54	1560	1692	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTM	13	33	397	459	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
FTA	15	44	530	615	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Three Point FGM	10	11	234	254	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
three Point FGA	25	28	676	727	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Off REB	10	7	257	282	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Def REB	23	21	565	611	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Total REB	33	28	822	893	N/A - sensitive to number of possessions
Personal Fouls	29	18	435	469
Assists	12	18	420	455	d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5
Turnovers	16	11	274	294	d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2
Blocks	2	1	53	56	d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7
Steals	5	12	273	294	d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7
Turnovers Forced	11	16	451	481	d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6
Points off Turnovers	23	19			N/A
Points in the Paint	48	26			N/A
Second Chance Points	17	6			N/A
Fast Break Points	14	32			N/A
Bench Points	27	40			N/A
Points	91	96	2157	2365	D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81
Games Played	24	24	24	24
Number of Possessions	83	77	82	1975	median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6
Pts per Possession	1.10	1.24	1.20	1.20	median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134
Effective Possession Ratio EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions	0.93	0.948	0.994	0.994	median .953 90th pctile .994
Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions	110	124	120	120	median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4
Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA	55.7%	58.3%	56%	56%	median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4%
True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA)))	59.4%	65.4%	60%	60%	median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9%
FT %	86.7%	75.0%	75%	75%	median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9%
FG%	48.6%	48.1%	49%	49%	median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9%
3PT%	40.0%	39.3%	35%	35%	median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4%
2PT%	53.3%	57.7%	59%	59%	median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8%
Turnovers Per Game	16	11	12	12	median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4
Turnover Margin (+ is good)	-5	5	20	7.8	D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3
Turnover %	19.4%	14.2%	333%	15%	typicall D1 is 15% to 20%
Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers	45.5%	75.0%	61%	61%	estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers)
Points per Opponent Turnover	2.09	1.19	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assists % of FG Made	35.3%	69.2%	55%	55%	median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8%
Assist to Turnover Ratio	0.75	1.64	1.55	1.55	median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487
Defensive Rebound %	76.7%	67.7%	71%	71%	median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9%
Offensive Rebound %	32.3%	23.3%	32%	32%	median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7%
Scoring Margin	-5	5	17	-397	Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts.

[Columbuseer]

FYI

A Dummy’s Observations on WLU vs Fairmont State (FS) 2/14/26

Fairmont State (FS) Preview
FS has about 3,300 students (as of 2023). They have a deep and talented team, with strong inside and outside players. It is purported that FS has the most resources in the MEC to acquire players.
They have 3 former D1 players from Marshall, Univ. Md BC, and Wright State. They are loaded with athletic, tall, long players, who can score at all three levels as well as quick guards. They have the former Concord big man in Diop.
They have quality depth; there are 8 players that play16 minutes or more and no one plays over 29 minutes.
Apparently, they have designed their roster to combat the fatigue generated by WLU and to score a high percentage of open looks from three or attack the rim when they break the trap. They shoot 49.2% FG, 39.6% 3FG (15^TH in D2) on about 11.3 3FG made per game. They share the ball with 17.7 assists and only 12.4 turnovers per game.



Fairmont State (FS) Game Plan
The FS strategy seemed to be:

• PASSED – Mix up their defenses, switching between zone and man-to-man. In the first half, the zone slowed down the WLU offense, as they took additional time to get the ball passed into the middle of the zone at the foul line.
• PASSED – Get the ball inside to their taller players. When WLU has a guard drop down to double team Diop or Carter or others, pass the ball out to their many 40%+ three-point shooters.
• PASSED – Shoot their average FG % and 3FG%.

Stat	FS Season Avg	FS avg for WLU game	WLU season Avg	WLU avg for FS game
FG%	49.2%	48.6%	48.8%	48.1%
3FG%	39.6%	40%	34.9%	39.3%
# 3FG Made	11.3	10	10.6	11
FT%	73.6%	82%	74.6%	75%
# FT Made	17.6	13	19.1	33

• PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. FS had 16 turnovers while forcing only 11 WLU turnovers. However, FS got 23 points off turnovers to 19 points for WLU.
• FAILED – 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. This approach failed because WLU rarely trapped, which gave FS few opportunities.
• FAILED – Dominate rebounding, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Although FS got more rebounds, the stats were much closer than in the first game. Some of the offensive rebounds were clustered around just a couple of scores, which limits their offensive rebounding margin on the outcome.

Keys to the WLU Game

FS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team that plays excellent defense and who can score at all three levels. They present numerous matchup problems against the shorter (overall) WLU team. When one plays such a strong team, WLU cannot have a subpar shooting performance (like WLU had in the first meeting) and must keep FS near their average shooting %. WLU cannot get dominated on the boards by this much taller team (unlike the first meeting).

• The advantage in foul shots was the determining factor in the WLU victory. WLU avoided getting in the 1-1 until late in the halves, whereas FS was in the 1-1 or double bonus much earlier in the halves.
• Like the second half of the Frostburg game, WLU predominately used man-to-man rather than trapping to pressure FS full-court to reduce the easy scores in transition (which FS got in the first meeting).
• Because WLU was not trapping, they could play longer without a rest, which allowed WLU to use the best matchup combinations for much of the game.
• Like the Frostburg game, WLU was playing fast in transition and in the half-court offense, creating fatigue without having to trap in the full-court. WLU was aggressive in attacking FS on offense at the rim, drawing numerous FS fouls.
• The WLU passing was excellent, finding the open man for the three, after collapsing the FS defense on dribble drives.
• WLU decided that they would make FS beat them with 2FGs, rather giving them open threes. At first, FS scored easily in the post. Then WLU started playing their big men in front of the taller FS players, which discouraged the post entry pass from FS. WLU greatly limited the wide-open looks from three by FS, compared to the first game.
• WLU shot above average at 39.3% 3FG on 11-28, while shot FS shot slightly above average 40% on 10-25. So 3FG% shooting was not a major advantage for WLU.

• WLU limited the rebounding disparity against the tall, long FS team. FS led in total rebounds 33-28 and in offensive rebounds 10-7. WLU pulled the FS big men out away from the rim because WLU big men were hitting threes, which reduced the FS height advantage in rebounding.
• The constant movement on offense by WLU and their tight man-to-man defense started to create mental fatigue on FS late in the game. WLU started breaking down the FS defense with beautiful passing for assists and easy scores. Several of the dominant players for FS started making silly fouls, which eventually led them to foul out of the game at a critical juncture late in the game. WLU was very disciplined in avoiding fouls.
• WLU predominantly played 2 big men rather than one in the game to partially limit the significant height advantage of FS. They got key rebounds and crucial scores

Areas for Improvement for WLU

• End-of-game player situational awareness. WLU had a ten-point lead with under 3 minutes. FS was trying to draw fouls. WLU was whistled for fouls that enabled FS to cut the lead to three late in the game. Players cannot allow the official’s judgment to come into play by contesting a shot that might have been a no-call earlier in the game. FS was in the double bonus and FS had to foul, giving WLU 2 shots on every foul. So, a more restrained approach to avoid closely contesting shots in the fading moments of the game is prudent.

[boatcapt]

WLU 96 Fairmont 91 avenging the early season loss. WLU is in the driver's seat for the MEC regular season crown. As I stated, WLU shot .395 from 3 and we win in a squeeker..

[TopperNation]

Time for my 3-month chime in, lol. I've been saying this for a little over 10 years now, you have to have a plan when your press is ineffective and not working! I get nightmares every time I think about WLU elite 8 appearances and the unwillingness to take off the full court press and either go to a half-court trap or full court man to man. I finally saw an adjustment and almost spilled my drink, lol. And I'm not talking an adjustment for maybe 2 or 3 plays; it was a big portion of the game! I couldn't do anything but smile because FB had WL on the ropes, even though I know that teams like Gannon, FSU, Cal, or even IUP would have coasted home with a W being up by 19. That was a big win, now let's not forget what we learned the other night when we play FSU. If they are scorching you, changeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I can accept a lost when you throw everything you have at the other team, but leaving things in your reserve and continuing to bump your head against the wall is insane.

[Columbuseer]

I hear you on Frostburg having potentional to be dangerous. Is Montano expected to return this year?

When I talked to some Frostburg folks in Jan. at WLU, they said that he was done for the year. It was some type of hand/wrist injury.

[Columbuseer]

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.

I was surprised by the lack of substitutions, also. In the normal trapping game, players typically play less than 5 minutes before going to the bench for a sub (with the recent exception of Montgomery). WLU players have incredibly high aerobic fitness. I speculate that after they stopped trapping, WLU was no longer constrained by fatigue considerations and could play the combination of players that gave them the best matchup advantage over Frostburg. It seemed like they want to rotate bigs to attack the Whippens and rotate quick guards to attack the slower Frostburg defenders. It was another great move by WLU in this coaching chess match.

[Topper_Hopper]

The team has speed, shooting, and height. They have the potential to be a very dangerous team in March, especially if Montano gets healthy.

I hear you on Frostburg having potentional to be dangerous. Is Montano expected to return this year?

[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.

[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.

[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.