2012 Final Four: Previewing Ohio State, Which Looks To Continue Amazing March Run

Mar 24, 2012; Boston, MA, USA; Ohio State Buckeyes forward Jared Sullinger (0) celebrates as time expires in the finals in the east region of the 2012 NCAA men's basketball tournament against the Syracuse Orange at TD Garden. Ohio State won 77-70. Mandatory Credit: Michael Ivins-US PRESSWIRE

Since the calendar turned to March, the Buckeyes have played some incredible basketball. Will Jared Sullinger's presence be enough to flip what was an 11-point gap between Kansas and Ohio State in December? | Previously: Louisville Final Four preview

It is difficult to think of a team that was receiving first-place votes in the preseason and drew a 2-seed in the NCAA Tournament as any sort of "dark horse" title contender. But with the way they somewhat drifted off of the radar screen late in the season, Ohio State almost qualifies. On February 7, they were 21-3, 9-2 in the rugged Big Ten and almost a sure 1-seed. But they lost three of their next five, including two home games, and despite a late win at Michigan State, they headed into the postseason on a bit of a down note. They whipped Purdue and Michigan to reach the Big Ten Championship Game (they fell to Michigan State, 68-64), but as the NCAA Tournament dawned, a large number of people were ignoring them in favor of the 3-seed, a Florida State team that had just won the ACC Tournament. (I am just happy I was not alone in this foolishness).

Four wins -- whippings of Loyola (Maryland) and Cincinnati and tough-it-out wins over Gonzaga and Syracuse -- later, Thad Matta is preparing for his second Final Four.

More Final Four: What Prior Meetings Tell Us | Schedule | Predictions

Matta brings to New Orleans a team that is both battle tested and incredibly young. Of the Buckeyes top six players, six are sophomores, but over the course of a brutal schedule, they have played 18 games versus Ken Pomeroy's Top 30 (ten versus the Top 12), including their Final Four foes, Kansas. On December 10, Ohio State fell in Lawrence by a 78-67 margin, but they were without star Jared Sullinger, who was held out with back spasms. The Buckeyes held their own somewhat on the interior, but they just couldn't make any shots. They shot 39 percent and lost by 11, but they still trailed by just six with two minutes left. On a neutral court, with Sullinger in uniform, they will have an excellent chance of making the national finals, whether many expected them to or not.

Ohio State (31-7)

Pace (No. of Possessions)
Points Per Possession (PPP)
1.14 0.91
Points Per Shot (PPS)
1.32 1.13
2-PT FG% 53.3% 45.1%
3-PT FG% 33.3% 32.5%
FT% 70.5% 69.7%
True Shooting % 56.4% 50.1%

OSU Opp.
Assists/Gm 14.7 10.1
Steals/Gm 7.2 4.9
Turnovers/Gm 11.8 14.8
Ball Control Index (BCI)
(Assists + Steals) / TO
1.86 1.01

OSU Opp.
Expected Off. Rebounds/Gm 11.6 11.8
Offensive Rebounds/Gm 12.0 8.3
Exp. Rebounding Margin +3.9

In 2004, Matta took over what was a rather dreadful defensive team in Columbus. He almost instantly turned them into a stout defensive squad -- only once have the Buckeyes ranked outside of the Top 25 in Ken Pomeroy's defensive efficiency ratings -- but this season might be his masterpiece. Ohio State will occasionally allow you a decent shot or two, but they will grab every defensive rebound opportunity and force turnovers without fouling. You better get somebody hot because you aren't going to be able to scrap and claw for points. The Buckeyes are too sound for that.

(For what it's worth, Kansas did indeed shoot well in their first meeting: Thomas Robinson shot 7-for-9, and the Jayhawks made nine of 17 3-point attempts.)

Offensively, Ohio State is going to let Sullinger post up and let Aaron Craft distribute, and as long as the right guys are taking the shots, they are going to bomb in some 3-pointers as well. With Sullinger, they take quite a few shots near the basket, and they grab their share of boards. Things go awry, however, if they have to rely on the long ball.

Ken Pomeroy Stats

OSU Offense vs Kansas Defense Ranks

OSU Offense KU Defense Advantage
Efficiency 7 4 Push
Effective FG% 50 6 KU
Turnover % 30 158 OSU big
Off. Reb. % 34 52 Push
FTA/FGA 117 103 Push
Kansas Offense vs OSU Defense Ranks

KU Offense OSU Defense Advantage
Efficiency 16 2 Push
Effective FG% 39 56 Push
Turnover % 113 60 OSU
Off. Reb. % 75 2 OSU

Where the Buckeyes are weakest

First, we start with the foundation itself: Ohio State ranks 304th in Bench Minutes -- five players average at least 25 minutes per game, and nobody else averages more than 11.4 -- and 287th in Experience. But aside from potentially Louisville, nobody in the Final Four is deep, so that is a bit of a wash.

As strange as it may seem at first, Ohio State is not a very good 3-point shooting team; they rank just 223rd in Off. 3PT%, primarily because the backups are terrible at it. Their primary bombers are Deshaun Thomas and William Buford, who have combined to make 35.2 percent of their eight attempts per game. Craft makes about 34 percent of his attempts, and Lenzelle Smith and Sullinger have combined to make 39 percent of their combined three attempts per game. But the overall average is dragged down horribly by freshmen. Shannon Scott and Sam Thompson have combined to make just two of their 32 3-point attempts. Take them out of the equation, and OSU ranks around 140th overall -- still not a strength, but not a weakness either.

On defense, the Buckeyes rank poorly in just one category: Def. FT%. That means that when they do foul, they are most likely sending guards, i.e. good free throw shooters, to the line. Craft averages 2.5 fouls per game -- he can get into trouble at times.

Where they are best

They are just so good near the basket. They rank 11th in Off. 2PT%, and they take more 2-pointers than almost anybody in the country. Sullinger and Deshaun Thomas have combined to make 57 percent of their 2's, and if they (or anybody else) misses a shot, they'll just grab the rebound and try again. The Buckeyes are also outstanding in the turnovers department. They rank 30th in Off. TO% and 11th in Off. Steal Rate. Craft is (sorry) crafty with the ball, and OSU simply gives its opponent few easy transition opportunities.

Meanwhile, it is difficult to isolate their biggest defensive strengths. They are just incredibly well-rounded. They rank only 64th in Def. 2PT% and 87th in Def. 3PT%, so they could be vulnerable to a hot streak from Robinson, Tyshawn Taylor, etc., but they do everything else really, really well.

OSU's Season to Date

  • Wins Versus Top 100 Teams (Team Rank is from KenPom.com)
    at No. 3 Michigan State, 72-70
    at No. 5 Wisconsin, 58-52
    vs. No. 6 Syracuse, 77-70
    No. 11 Indiana, 80-63
    No. 12 Florida, 81-74
    No. 20 Duke, 85-63
    No. 21 Purdue, 87-84
    vs. No. 21 Purdue, 88-71
    vs. No. 22 Gonzaga, 73-66
    vs. No. 26 Cincinnati, 81-66
    No. 27 Michigan, 64-49
    vs. No. 27 Michigan, 77-55
    at No. 35 Minnesota, 78-68
    No. 68 Northwestern, 87-54
    at No. 68 Northwestern, 75-73
    No. 71 Illinois, 83-67
    at No. 83 Iowa, 76-47
  • Losses
    No. 3 Michigan State, 48-58
    vs. No. 3 Michigan State, 64-68
    at No. 4 Kansas, 67-78
    No. 5 Wisconsin, 60-63
    at No. 11 Indiana, 70-74
    at No. 27 Michigan, 51-56
    at No. 71 Illinois, 74-79

The Buckeyes are 5-5 versus the Top 12, 12-6 versus the Top 30, and 17-7 versus the Top 100.

OSU Player Stats

Player AdjGS*/Gm GmSc/Min Line
Jared Sullinger (6'9, 280, So.) 18.4 0.61 30.1 MPG, 17.6 PPG (54% 2PT, 42% 3PT, 77% FT), 9.1 RPG (3.1 OFF), 1.2 APG, 1.2 SPG, 1.0 BPG, 1.9 TOPG
Deshaun Thomas (6'7, 225, So.) 14.7 0.46 31.6 MPG, 16.1 PPG (61% 2PT, 36% 3PT, 74% FT), 5.4 RPG (2.6 OFF), 1.2 TOPG
Aaron Craft (6'2, 190, So.) 11.7 0.37 32.0 MPG, 8.8 PPG (57% 2PT, 34% 3PT, 71% FT), 4.7 APG, 3.3 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 2.2 TOPG
William Buford (6'6, 220, Sr.) 11.5 0.34 33.8 MPG, 14.4 PPG (45% 2PT, 35% 3PT, 83% FT), 4.9 RPG, 2.7 APG, 2.1 TOPG
Lenzelle Smith, Jr. (6'4, 205, So.) 7.7 0.30 25.2 MPG, 6.7 PPG (55% 2PT, 38% 3PT, 61% FT), 4.6 RPG (1.3 OFF), 2.0 APG, 1.2 TOPG
J.D. Weatherspoon (6'6, 215, So.) 3.2 0.51 6.3 MPG, 3.0 PPG, 1.1 RPG
Evan Ravenel (6'8, 260, Jr.) 2.9 0.28 10.1 MPG, 3.5 PPG (54% 2PT, 70% FT), 2.2 RPG
Amir Williams (6'11, 220, Fr.) 2.5 0.37 6.7 MPG, 1.7 PPG, 2.2 RPG
Sam Thompson (6'7, 190, Fr.) 2.0 0.19 10.6 MPG, 2.1 PPG (60% 2PT, 7% 3PT, 55% FT), 1.1 RPG
Jordan Sibert (6'4, 185, So.) 1.8 0.16 11.4 MPG, 3.0 PPG (38% 2PT, 26% 3PT, 56% FT), 1.4 RPG
Shannon Scott (6'1, 180, Fr.) 0.6 0.06 10.6 MPG, 1.2 PPG (36% 2PT, 6% 3PT, 22% FT), 1.7 APG, 1.1 RPG, 1.0 TOPG

* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It redistributes a team's points based not only on points scored, but also by giving credit for assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls. It is a stat intended to determine who had the biggest overall impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

  • Highest Usage%: Sullinger (28%), Buford (24%), Thomas (23%), Weatherspoon (22%)
  • Highest Floor%: Craft (46%), Thomas (45%), Sullinger (44%), Smith (42%)
  • Highest %Pass: Scott (75%), Craft (72%), Smith (60%), Thompson (60%)
  • Highest %Shoot: Thomas (57%), Sullinger (45%), Ravenel (39%), Buford (38%)
  • Highest %Fouled: Ravenel (23%), Sullinger (21%), Thomas (12%), Smith (10%)
  • Highest %T/O: Ravenel (13%), Scott (8%), Sullinger (7%), Thompson (7%0

A player's Floor Percentage is defined as "the percentage of an individual's possessions which are scoring possessions." It is a sign of an incredibly balanced offense that only two of nine players listed above are below 38 percent in this category. Even though the show runs through Sullinger (and to a lesser extent, Buford and Thomas), everybody contributes efficiently and effectively. Really, they are basically one more good 3-point shooter away from having potentially the best offense in the country. But the 3-point line has been selective kryptonite for this team, and it could be again this weekend.


The first time Ohio State played Kansas this season, they were without their star in one of the most intimidating venues in the country. They held steady and gave themselves a chance, primarily because they kept Kansas off of the offensive glass and forced 18 turnovers. With Sullinger taking over for Evan Ravenel (25 minutes, nine points, five rebounds, four turnovers, five fouls) on a neutral site, Ohio State has to like its chances. Pomeroy projects a 70-67 win for the Buckeyes, and while that would go against my original title game pick of Kentucky vs. Kansas, that sounds just about right. OSU is steady and battle-tested. Now they just have to keep playing like they have since February turned into March.

Check out the SB Nation Channel on YouTube

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join SBNation.com

You must be a member of SBNation.com to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at SBNation.com. You should read them.

Join SBNation.com

You must be a member of SBNation.com to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at SBNation.com. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.