/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48864909/usa-today-9104898.0.jpg)
Entering what very clearly was going to be a transitional season for Ohio State, one could make a compelling case that the position undergoing the most significant transformation was center. Out were Amir Williams, Trey McDonald, and Anthony Lee, and in were Trevor Thompson, Daniel Giddens, and David Bell.
Given the real (and perceived) underachieving by the 6-11 Williams and 6-8 McDonald -- who were four-star and three-star prospects, respectively, in Ohio State's seventh-ranked 2011 recruiting class, there was real excitement surrounding the debuts of Thompson, a 6-11 transfer from Virginia Tech, and Giddens, a 6-10 jumping jack who at the very least would play with the emotion that many Buckeye fans felt Williams rarely exhibited during his time in Columbus.
During their senior campaigns last winter, Williams and McDonald received the lion's share of the minutes at center -- I removed Lee from this exercise because injuries robbed him of substantial playing time -- while to this point in the 2015-16 season, Thompson, a redshirt sophomore, and Giddens, a true freshman, have landed the overwhelming majority of the minutes at center for the Buckeyes. (Redshirt freshman David Bell has logged just 112 minutes on the year.)
Thad Matta has very rarely strayed from his single big approach -- the opposite would be a team like North Carolina, which prefers to play with two post threats -- meaning we can maintain an accurate comparison between the two duos to determine if Williams and McDonald were better than Ohio State fans remember, or if Thompson and Giddens have already surpassed last season's primary post pair.
Let's start off with comparing Williams-McDonald (2014-15) and Thompson-Giddens (2015-16) with some basic statistics:
Minutes |
Points |
Rebounds |
Blocks |
Field Goal % |
Free Throw % |
|
2014-15 |
1,055 |
9.2 |
7.3 |
2.1 |
60 |
57.5 |
2015-16 |
932 |
10.9 |
9.0 |
2.9 |
53 |
57.5 |
Offensive Rating |
Defensive Rating |
Offensive Rebound Rate |
Turnover Rate |
Player Efficiency Rating |
|
2014-15 |
116.5 |
94.1 |
11.2 |
16.8 |
17.6 |
2015-16 |
102.7 |
93.1 |
10.4 |
18.9 |
16.5 |