-
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.Last edited by TopperNation; 02-13-2026, 09:51 AM.Leave a comment:
-
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.Originally posted by Topper_Hopper View PostLeave a comment:
-
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.Originally posted by Scrub View PostLast edited by Columbuseer; 02-13-2026, 08:49 AM.Leave a comment:
-
I hear you on Frostburg having potentional to be dangerous. Is Montano expected to return this year?The team has speed, shooting, and height. They have the potential to be a very dangerous team in March, especially if Montano gets healthy.
Leave a comment:
-
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.Originally posted by Columbuseer View Post
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.Leave a comment:
-
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 PercentileWLU 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) / Possessions0.92 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. Leave a comment:
-
FYIA 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 90th 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 90th 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Great points. The WLU coaches did exactly what you suggested! Impressive analysis.Originally posted by Scrub View Post
You really seem to understand the game at more than a superficial level.
I thought Frostburg had the game plan and the players to successfully attack the press in transition. Hats off to their coaches.
Leave a comment:
-
I'm sure we will soon see a collection of advanced stats that show that what looked like a really poor game for WLU was really a good game and how we where in the 90th Percentile when compared to D1 teams is a number of derivative advanced stats.
I'm a little bit simpler than that. As I've said all season, WLUs performance can be summed up by one simple stat...3 point shooting. Against Frostburg, in the first half we shot 30% and where down by 15 points...second half we shot 50% from 3 and scored 19 more than Frostburg, winning the game by 4 points.
Sometimes it really is that simple.
Against Fairmont, if we shoot 50% from 3, we win easily...we shoot 45-49% we win a skweaker...40-45% is a tossup and less than 40%, we lose.Leave a comment:
-
A valiant second half effort by the Hilltoppers to pull it out. This one had all the makings of the annual bad conference loss: sluggish start by WLU; opponent who couldn't miss; press was ineffective; WLU free throw shooting was way off; league title on the line Saturday to look forward to; trap game; etc,.
That was a growth-inducing win to dig deep and pull it out when all the conditions for a Frostburg upset were present.Leave a comment:
-
Really ugly start. Shades of how flat they looked in Richmond when they visited Union.
Wondering if they ought to call off the trap in the second half and just sit down and guard. Frostburg doesn't mind running and hasn't looked very phased by the trap.
I mentioned it on the board after the WVWC game--can't show up flat in Frostburg because they have the firepower to pull the upset (did it last year in this building). Gotta get something fixed during halftime.
(We do have to assume that Frostburg's 67% shooting will cool off a bit in the second half)Leave a comment:
-
Great points. I appreciate your well thought-out and mature insights. So many message boards are just a playground for narcissists.Originally posted by Scrub View Post
I am also worried about Frostburg. At WL, they lost their leading scorer due to a freak eye injury. They play up-tempo, so I expect them to attack the rim in transition, rather than pull it out and run the offense.
I vacillate between which is the better strategy for teams against WLU.
1. If you attack the rim in transition, you can get easy scores or open looks from three at the risk of no offensive rebounds and more cumulative fatigue over the course of the game.
2.If one chooses to set up the offense even though one has numbers in transition. it relies on getting open looks in the half-court offense or getting WLU in foul trouble. It also somewhat delays the onset of fatigue. One needs to hope for a hot shooting night.
Coaches have to select the option that gives them the higher points per possession.
My guess, is if you have depth and athletic guys who can finish at the rim, choose option 1.
Otherwise option 2 may be more prudent.Leave a comment:
-
WLU does typically struggle a bit with a zone. And, man, there was a really ugly stretch in the middle of that game where WLU let a pretty bad team hang around. They better not get any ideas about letting Frostburg hang around on Wednesday. Frostburg has the firepower to pull the upset if WLU gets sloppy again.Originally posted by Columbuseer View PostLeave a comment:
-
FYI
Team Single Game Advanced Stats
Red cell indicates 20% below D1 median value, green cell is above 90th percentile D1 value (where D1 data available)
D1 values are used for comparison because similar D2 stats are not readily available.
WLU at WV Wesleyan 2/7/26 game 22 Statistic WV Wesleyan WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 28 37 763 726 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 64 78 1560 1482 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 17 23 397 374 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 25 31 530 499 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 8 13 234 221 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 32 40 676 636 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 6 15 257 242 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 27 33 565 532 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 33 48 822 774 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 23 20 435 415 Assists 19 27 420 393 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 21 14 274 260 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 2 4 53 52 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 6 14 273 259 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 14 21 451 430 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 11 31 N/A Points in the Paint 36 48 N/A Second Chance Points 2 15 N/A Fast Break Points 19 26 N/A Bench Points 30 44 N/A Points 81 110 2157 2047 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 21 22 22 22 Number of Possessions 90 91 78 1720 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 0.90 1.21 1.19 1.19 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.83 1.011 0.990 0.990 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 90 121 119 119 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 50.0% 55.8% 56% 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 54.0% 60.0% 60% 60% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 68.0% 74.2% 75% 75% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 43.8% 47.4% 49% 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 25.0% 32.5% 35% 35% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 62.5% 63.2% 60% 60% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 21 14 12 12 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -7 7 20 7.7 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 23.3% 15.4% 351% 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 42.9% 66.7% 60% 60% estimate: median(steals)/median(turnovers) Points per Opponent Turnover 0.79 1.48 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 67.9% 73.0% 54% 54% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.90 1.93 1.51 1.51 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 64.3% 84.6% 69% 69% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 15.4% 35.7% 30% 30% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -29 29 13 -278 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: