True Shooting %
I was curious about the true shooting % (which factors in FG, 3FG, and FT) and three-point % for WLU players this season.
In any process, there are two general types of variation - common cause and special cause.
- Common cause variation - this is variation that is inherent in any process and quite resistant to change unless one changes the process entirely.
- Special cause variation - these are areas that one can affect with process improvement or quality control measures.
Some examples sources of common cause variation in the basketball shooting process are:
- venue characteristics - lighting, shooting background, home vs away, crowd noise, etc.
- opponent defensive skill, height, quickness, etc.
- 2019 increase in the three-point line distance that has reduced 3 point %.
Some examples of potential special cause variation are:
- fatigue due to road trip, or during the game
- injury
- shooting mechanics
- shot selection
- Distance of opponent from the shooter when the ball is released.
Rather than look at season averages, it may be useful to explore variation from game to game, which keeps a few horrendous shooting nights from masking the view of individual shooting prowess. For example, if one player shoots 80% in game 1 and 40% in Game 2, the game to game average is 60%.
For each game, the sample includes all players that played at least 2 minutes and attempted at least 2 FGs in a game.
For this season, WLU had 8 players whose game-to-game true shooting percentage was over 59%. They had 12 players with 54.4% or greater true shooting percentage.
The D1 90th percentile is 58.9%.
Three-Point Shooting %
1.If one includes only games where a player shot > 40% 3-pt shooting % and attempted at least 2 3FGA per game, one finds that five players had 13 or more games (two had 15 games) where their game to game average was over 40%. Some were much higher!
2. If one looks at game-to-game averages where a player attempted at least two 3-pt FGA, regardless of 3FG%, WLU had 3 players who averaged over 41% 3FG and 8 players averaging over 35%.
The data seems to indicate that the issue is consistency, not inability to shoot the 3FG. This is confirmed by the relatively high standard deviation, which is also obvious to the fans who have seen hot and cold shooting games.
The open question is what areas of the process variation is controllable (special cause variation) and how much is inherent in the process (common cause variation)?
-
-
Good points. I would respectivefully disagree about lack of gym rats. There are as many gym rats on this team as in past years. That is a big factor in wlu deciding who to offer. Casual players need not apply even if they are talented.Originally posted by Scrub View Post
Another thing that has changed since Crutch left is N.I.L. it is in D2. Ever wonder why kayser changed his commitment from wl to nova se, even though he had visited both before committing to wlu?
if folks really want to overcome geographical disadvantages of wlu, better get the checkbook out for N.I.L.
I went to erie. I liked the game plan of vu. Slow the game down on offense and defense. Wlu was just a second early or late in flashing to the open area of the zone at the foul line. VU closed out and elevated like a d1 team when defending the three. Wlu will need to work on getting the three off faster- requires body and hand position in ready position and a perfect pass to waiting shooter.
wlu graduates one player. Future is bright. Like most setbacks, one often learns more than from successes. It was a good learning experience for the team.Last edited by Columbuseer; 03-15-2026, 01:57 PM.Leave a comment:
-
It really depends on what the kid wants. Coming out of HS (many years ago), a place like South FL held no attraction for me. But every kid is different.Originally posted by Scrub View Post
Not saying you can't have any "athletes," just that those characteristics should not be your sole focus when building the team. Give me a team equal parts gym rat/hate to lose/dive on the floor for everything guys, athletes that equally adept gliding down the lane as they are knocking down short jumpers, 3 point snipers and a couple of bigs that can sweep the boards inside/make the right outlet pass/and who is adept at getting put backs inside. And give me a solid assist first point guard that knows when to run and when not to run and gets us into the correct play at the correct time
WLU had two seniors on the roster this year but if recent history is a guide we'll lose 3 or 4 others. Given the shape of this team, I want to see at least 3 being the hate-to-lise/gym rat at least one spot-up 3 point shooter and a legit assist first point guard.Leave a comment:
-
I don't disagree that WLU has to get back to finding the under-recruited gym rat kids. Here's my take on why:Originally posted by boatcapt View Post
With so many branches of Crutch's coaching tree out there now, any big, long, athletic kid who wants to play Crutchball will have a lot of options for where to go to do so. And most of those options are more attractive than being perched on a hilltop in middle-of-nowhere WV. Ft. Lauderdale is destination #1. But you can go to Indy if you're a D1 body. You can go to Erie where there's actually a city and, you know, a gas station. You can even go down to Beaufort, SC if you want the warm weather but a small town.
When Crutch started this, he was the only one playing this way, so a kid who wanted to play this way chose WLU. That's how you end up with studs like Bonifant, Cedric Harris, Bryce Butler, etc. recruited to WLU. But does anyone really believe that the next kid with Bonifant's ability isn't going to be in Ft. Lauderdale, Indy, Erie, or elsewhere this time around?
When Crutch started this, he had to recruit the under-recruited gym rat kids just to get people willing to play. WLU might have to full-circle go back to that simply because the on-the-radar kids are heading to Ft. Lauderdale & Erie, so WLU has to get back to finding the under-the-radar kids (need more Dalton Bolon, Luke Dyer types again). Might be a full circle moment for the program because WLU once again faces a recruiting challenge (just of a different nature this time around).Leave a comment:
-
Advanced stats aside, this was not a good version of WLU. They started the year with some serious flaws and never really got better. Sure, we won a lot of regular season games but it always felt like we where barely doing enough to win and not much more. 3 point shooting, a calling card of typical WLU team, never really got on track and at numerous times was downright atrocious. Heading into the season there was a lot of hype about having seven .400 3-point shooters...also a lot of hype about having a plethora of bigs and how that was going to be a game changer. Neither materialized. What we doing ended up with was about two .400 3-point shooters and a plethora of bigs that did their best to play like 6 foot shooting guards.
Lots of work to do on this team before next season. There has been a push over the last 10 years to build .WLU based on athletes that can "do it all " While that has produced some good results, it has also resulted is some poor (by WLU standards) teams. We need to remember that no one forced WLU to change from the "gym rat/coaches son/3 point sniper/Charlie Hussle" type player I wasn't like we started losing with these type players. Perhaps we need a few more of those and fewer "athletes."Leave a comment:
-
U. G. L. Y.
I really thought having seen the VUU zone once the Hilltoppers would have a plan for picking it apart. They clearly did not.
I never thought this was an Elite 8-worthy edition of the Hilltoppers, but you hate to see it end with such a whimper. You'd like to see a better showing (even in a loss) than this cringe-worthy, unwatchable mess.
Congrats to Coach Butler and the Panthers. The unwatchable mess was exactly what they were game planning for. Good on them for executing.Leave a comment:
-
More of the same as we saw in November in Richmond. Terrible first half against the VUU zone.
Gotta do better adjusting in the second. Never were able to recover from the terrible start in that game back in November.Leave a comment:
-
FYI Data Analytics for the mathematically-inclined folks...
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 data is used for comparison because D2 data is not readily available
WLU vs MEC Fairmont 3/8/26 game 31 Statistic Fairmont MEC WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 32 31 34.5 1071 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 65 57 70.6 2190 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 18 18 19.1 593 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 26 23 25.9 803 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 6 13 10.6 328 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 23 29 29.6 919 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 11 6 12.0 373 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 22 26 25.5 791 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 33 43 37.9 1175 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 20 32 19.6 609 Assists 17 30 18.8 584 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 19 23 12.8 396 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 0 2 2.3 70 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 15 8 12.4 385 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 23 19 20.2 627 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 10 20 N/A Points in the Paint 52 32 N/A Second Chance Points 12 5 N/A Fast Break Points 32 28 N/A Bench Points 27 35 N/A Points 88 93 98.8 3063 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 31 31 31.0 31 Number of Possessions 84 84 82.8 2566 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 1.04 1.11 1.2 1.19 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.91 0.798 1.0 0.991 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 104 111 119.4 119 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 53.8% 65.8% 0.6 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 57.6% 69.3% 0.6 60% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 69.2% 78.3% 0.7 74% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 49.2% 54.4% 0.5 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 26.1% 44.8% 0.4 36% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 61.9% 64.3% 0.6 58% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 19 23 12.8 13 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) 4 -4 19.5 7.5 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 22.5% 27.3% 0.2 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 65.2% 42.1% 0.6 61% D1 90th percentile is 55% Points per Opponent Turnover 0.43 1.05 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 53.1% 96.8% 0.5 55% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.89 1.30 1.5 1.47 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 78.6% 70.3% 0.7 71% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 29.7% 21.4% 0.3 32% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -5 5 15.8 -491 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
FYIA Dummy’s Observations on MEC WLU vs Fairmont 3/8/26WLU 93 – Fairmont 88
Fairmont State (FS) Preview
FS has about 3,300 students (as of 2023). They have a very deep and talented team, with strong inside and outside players. It is purported that FS has the most resources (as in NIL, also known as pay-to-play) 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 and former MEC Defensive Player of the Pear 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.
Fairmont State (FS) Game PlanTeam Stats (26-5, 17-3) Overall Team Statistics Statistic Fairmont St. Opponents Scoring Total Points 2811 2307 Points Per Game 90.7 74.4 Scoring Margin 16.3 -- Shooting FG: Made-Attempted 980-1963 781-1877 FG: Percentage 0.499 0.416 FG: Per Game 31.6 25.2 3PT: Made-Attempted 336-854 282-814 3PT: Percentage 0.393 0.346 3PT: Per Game 10.8 9.1 FT: Made-Attempted 515-716 463-627 FT: Percentage 0.719 0.738 FT: Per Game 16.6 14.9 Rebounding Total 1227 978 Per Game 39.6 31.5 Margin 8 -- Assists Total 547 369 Per Game 17.6 11.9 Turnovers Total 385 430 Per Game 12.4 13.9 Margin 1.5 -- Assist/Turnover Ratio 1.4 0.9 Points Off Turnovers 18.9 13.3 Steals Total 269 209 Per Game 8.7 6.7 Blocks Total 118 71 Per Game 3.8 2.3 Attendance Total 11850 4295 Per Game 15-790 13-330
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 bell passed into the middle of the zone at the foul line. Fairmont is an excellent defensive team with their length and quickness.
- PASSED – Get the ball inside to their taller players. Fairmont got 52 points in the paint, compared to 32 for WLU.
Stat FS Season Avg FS avg for WLU game WLU season Avg WLU avg for FS game FG% 49.9% 49.2% 50% 54.4^% 3FG% 39.3% 26.1% 34.9% 44.8% # 3FG Made 10.8 6 10.6 13 FT% 71.9% 69.2% 70.4% 78.3% # FT Made 16.6 18 19.1 18 - PASSED – Limit the turnover margin. FS had 19 turnovers while forcing 23 WLU turnovers. FS got 23 points off turnovers to 19 points for WLU.
- PASSED– Dominate rebounding, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. FS won offensive rebounds 11-6 and overall rebounds 33-32. FS won second chance points 12-5.
- FAILED– Shoot their average FG % and 3FG%. FS shot only 26% 3FG, far below their elite 39.3% average.
Keys to the WLU Game
FS is a very athletic, tall, and talented team with ex-D1 players, 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).
Often, victory often depends on a combination of 3 factors – true shooting %, offensive rebounding, and points off turnover margin. Teams that are deficient in one factor can win by dominating in one or more other factors, with the objective of getting sufficiently more FGA or FTA to offset a lower true shooting percentage, resulting in higher points per possession.- True Shooting % - WLU 69.3% FS 57.6%, aided by cold FS 3FG (26.1%) and elite WLU 3FG (44.8%). This disparity overcame the fact that FS got 8 more FGA.
- Offensive Rebounding – FS 11 WLU 6
- Turnovers – FS 19 – WLU 23. – very unusual for WLU
- Points off Turnovers – WLU 20 FS 19
Areas for Improvement for WLU- End-of-game player situational awareness. WLU committed 7 turnovers in the last 4 minutes of the game on poor decisions or soft passes. I wonder if the fatigue from the previous strenuous 2 games was finally taking their toll, in addition to a highly energetic FS defense.
- Players are still telegraphing passes and throwing passes too casually.
- Playoff-level teams like FS will strip the ball when WLU tries to split defenders on the dribble in half-court. FS had quick, active hands.
Leave a comment:
-
FYI Glenville Data Analytics
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 data is used for comparison because D2 data is not readily available
WLU vs MEC Glenville 3/7/26 game 30 Statistic Glenville MEC WLU WLU Season Avg WLU Season Totals 2024 D1 Median Value For Comparison FGM 33 36 34.7 1040 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FGA 65 81 71.1 2133 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTM 18 23 19.2 575 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions FTA 20 42 26.0 780 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Three Point FGM 16 10 10.5 315 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions three Point FGA 29 30 29.7 890 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Off REB 9 23 12.2 367 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Def REB 33 25 25.5 765 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Total REB 42 48 37.7 1132 N/A - sensitive to number of possessions Personal Fouls 34 19 19.2 577 Assists 22 16 18.5 554 d1 median 13.7 90th percentile 16.5 Turnovers 28 16 12.4 373 d1 median 11.6 90th percentile 10.2 Blocks 7 3 2.3 68 d1 median 3.4 90th percentile 4.7 Steals 6 22 12.6 377 d1 median 7.0 90th percentile 8.7 Turnovers Forced 16 28 20.3 608 d1 median 12.4 90th pctile 14.6 Points off Turnovers 15 33 N/A Points in the Paint 30 46 N/A Second Chance Points 12 30 N/A Fast Break Points 17 6 N/A Bench Points 19 40 N/A Points 100 105 99.0 2970 D1 median 74.9 90th pctile 81 Games Played 30 30 30.0 30 Number of Possessions 93 92 82.7 2482 median 70.7 90th pctile 74.6 Pts per Possession 1.08 1.14 1.2 1.20 median 1.034 90th pctile 1.134 Effective Possession Ratio
EPR =(Possessions + Off. Rebounds - Turnovers) / Possessions0.80 1.076 1.0 0.998 median .953 90th pctile .994 Offensive Rating - pts/100 possessions 108 114 119.7 120 median 103.4 90th pctile 113.4 Shooting Efficiency (FGM +0.5*3ptFGM) /FGA 63.1% 50.6% 0.6 56% median 50.5% 90th pctile 55.4% True Shooting % (0.5*(PTS*(FGA+(0.44*FTA))) 67.8% 52.8% 0.6 60% median 54.2% 90th pctile 58.9% FT % 90.0% 54.8% 0.7 74% median 71.9% 90th pctile 77.9% FG% 50.8% 44.4% 0.5 49% median 44.1% 90th pctile 47.9% 3PT% 55.2% 33.3% 0.4 35% median 33.3% 90th pctile 37.4% 2PT% 47.2% 51.0% 0.6 58% median is about 47.8% 90th pctile 50.8% Turnovers Per Game 28 16 12.4 12 median 12.1 90th pctile 10.4 Turnover Margin (+ is good) -12 12 19.7 7.8 D1 median 0.6 90th percentile 3 Turnover % 30.2% 17.3% 0.2 15% typicall D1 is 15% to 20% Forced Live Ball Turnovers % of total Forced Turnovers 37.5% 78.6% 0.6 62% D1 90th percentile is 55% Points per Opponent Turnover 0.94 1.18 N/A N/A N/A Assists % of FG Made 66.7% 44.4% 0.5 53% median 51.6% 90th pctile 59.8% Assist to Turnover Ratio 0.79 1.00 1.5 1.49 median 1.087 90th pctile 1.487 Defensive Rebound % 58.9% 73.5% 0.7 71% median 72.3% 90th pctile 75.9% Offensive Rebound % 26.5% 41.1% 0.3 33% median 28.1% 90th pctile 33.7% Scoring Margin -5 5 16.2 -486 Median 3 pts, 90th pctile 11 pts. Leave a comment:
-
FYIA Dummy’s Observations on MEC WLU vs GU 3/7/26WLU 105 – GU 100 in double OTGlenville Univ. (GU) 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 have long, tall forwards and a bulky, strong center who is hard to defend. They play excellent defense. Glenville has 4 double figure scorers and several elite three-point shooters. They have two of the best guards in the MEC in Knott and Redfern. They play 4 players over 30 minutes a game, and their bench only goes 7 deep, 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 18-11 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.
Here are some stats, sorted by descending scoring average.
Scoring
Overall Scoring Statistics # Player GP GS MIN FGM FGA FG% 3PT 3PTA 3PT% FTM FTA FT% PTS AVG 14 Stump, Trey 9 0 27 3 12 .250 3 12 .250 0 0 .000 9 1.0 12 Redfern, Elijah 30 30 907 170 374 .455 51 144 .354 99 128 .773 490 16.3 07 Mosengo, Prince 30 30 928 155 254 .610 8 13 .615 67 89 .753 385 12.8 00 Maxwell, Ammar 30 26 849 124 257 .482 15 47 .319 62 86 .721 325 10.8 01 Knott, Jalen 30 30 978 178 425 .419 111 286 .388 79 109 .725 546 18.2 13 Kisner, Garrison 20 0 143 9 24 .375 5 19 .263 0 0 .000 23 1.2 02 Kelly, Julian 8 0 26 3 8 .375 1 2 .500 3 8 .375 10 1.3 24 Holmes, Jordan 8 0 34 2 10 .200 0 4 .000 2 6 .333 6 0.8 32 Greenwich, Malachi 1 0 1 0 0 .000 0 0 .000 0 0 .000 0 0.0 22 Gadd, Rye 24 4 486 55 111 .495 23 58 .397 43 60 .717 176 7.3 11 Crossman, Callum 24 0 248 46 79 .582 0 1 .000 27 42 .643 119 5.0 33 Colon-Lewis, Don 30 30 969 141 323 .437 62 183 .339 29 34 .853 373 12.4 23 Boulden, Corey 30 0 529 71 162 .438 62 142 .437 11 21 .524 215 7.2 Total 30 6125 957 2039 .469 341 911 .374 422 583 .724 2677 89.23 Opponents 30 6125 839 1953 .430 316 903 .350 492 673 .731 2486 82.87
Team Stats (18-12, 11-9)
Overall Team Statistics Statistic Glenville St. Opponents Scoring Total Points 2677 2486 Points Per Game 89.2 82.9 Scoring Margin 6.4 -- Shooting FG: Made-Attempted 957-2039 839-1953 FG: Percentage .469 .430 FG: Per Game 31.9 28.0 3PT: Made-Attempted 341-911 316-903 3PT: Percentage .374 .350 3PT: Per Game 11.4 10.5 FT: Made-Attempted 422-583 492-673 FT: Percentage .724 .731 FT: Per Game 14.1 16.4 Rebounding Total 1158 1096 Per Game 38.6 36.5 Margin 2.1 -- Assists Total 478 392 Per Game 15.9 13.1 Turnovers Total 360 389 Per Game 12.0 13.0 Margin 1.0 -- Assist/Turnover Ratio 1.3 1.0 Points Off Turnovers 16.5 13.0 Steals Total 204 221 Per Game 6.8 7.4 Blocks Total 101 84 Per Game 3.4 2.8 Attendance Total 4850 4046 Per Game 14-346 13-311
Glenville (GU) Game Plan
The GS strategy seemed to be:- PASSED – Attack the rim in transition with their tall players or kick the ball out to their excellent three-point shooters.
- PASSED – Shoot their average. GS shot far above average in FG, 3FG and FT. These numbers were good enough for almost certain victory, except against WLU.
Stat Glenville Season Avg Glenville vs WLU WLU stats FG% 46.9% 50.8% 44.4% 3FG% 37.4% 55.2% 33.3% FT% 72.4% 90.0% 54.8% - FAILED– Limit the turnover margin. GS had 28 turnovers (12.0 season avg.).
- FAILED –Win the rebounding battle, by leveraging their height and strength advantage. Despite GU’s size advantage, WLU dominated offensive rebounding won the rebounding battle 23-9.
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 WLU and pushing the ball up the court against the WLU trapping defense. GU was playing their starters far too long in the first half and continued this strategy in the second half. It would prove to be their undoing.
In addition to putting great pressure on GU with their trapping defense, the constant movement of WLU on offense was forcing GU to work very hard on defense. By the second half, GU was getting a step slow. WLU was attacking them by driving to the rim and drawing fouls.
Despite being a smaller team, WLU got an amazing 41% of offensive rebounds (D1 90th percentile is 33%). An amazing 78.6% of the 28 forced turnovers by WLU were live ball turnovers (D1 90th percentile is 55%). WLU scored 33 points off turnovers to just 15 for GU. These live ball turnovers were essential in erasing the 9-point GU lead in the last three minutes. WLU forced 4 turnovers in the last 3:30 seconds. A deep three by WLU with 30 seconds remaining tied the score at 77.
GU was exhausted, both mentally and physically. Key players fouled out for GU, instinctively committing fouls and losing situational awareness (that they had to stay in the game and could not foul out). However, give GU credit. Despite having little depth, they kept battling until the end of the 2nd OT.
Often, victory often depends on a combination of 3 factors – true shooting %, offensive rebounding, and points off turnover margin. Teams that are deficient in one factor can win by dominating in one or more other factors, with the objective of getting more FGA or FTA to offset an lower true shooting percentage, resulting in higher points per possession.
In this game, a high points off turnover margin (33-15) and offensive rebounding margin (23-9) resulted in WLU getting 26 more FGA than Glenville. It allowed WLU to squeak out a win.
Areas for Improvement for WLU- WLU has had shooting woes for the last three games, especially foul shooting. Hopefully, it is an aberration. Wheeling showed that limiting points off turnover margin and shooting better than WLU is a key to beating WLU,
Leave a comment:
-
With only occasional acceptations, WLU has a history of getting manhandled in the Tourney. They sometimes can overcome through insane shooting, but by and large, WLU has been susceptible to teams with several dominant bigs. Recruiting this year was supposed to have addressed this. Didn't produce the results we hoped for in Richmond. Let's see if a neutral court and an entire season of experience are enough to close the gap.Originally posted by Scrub View PostLeave a comment:
-
But now we need to talk about the fact that WLU got manhandled in Richmond earlier this season. They're clearly a more mature version of the Hilltoppers now than they were then, but they better have a plan for how to crack the vaunted VUU defense that caused them so many problems before.Leave a comment:
-
Fyi
wlu post game press conference starts at 33:15. Montgomery and Williams there with lamberti.
montgomery was tourney mvp with mec tourney record 14 steals. williams and muldowney also made all tourney.
https://mountaineast.tv/?B=3670729Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: