Trey Burke And The Chris Paul Comparison
In the 2005 NBA Draft, three players were selected before Chris Paul.
Australian-born Naismith winner Andrew Bogut went first to the Milwaukee Bucks, a team with two young point guards—T.J. Ford and Mo Williams—hoping to fill a hole at center. He topped out as a solid post threat and rebounder before injuries derailed his career over the last couple seasons.
The second pick belonged to the Atlanta Hawks, a franchise in desperate need of a franchise point guard. Instead of choosing Paul, the super-productive yet diminutive playmaker, the Hawks chose Marvin Williams, a 6'9" forward who'd flashed great promise as a freshman sixth man on North Carolina's national title team. Good at many things but great at none, Williams has been a huge disappointment, providing below-average efficiency as the third option on some decent Hawks teams before being traded prior to last season straight-up for Devin Harris, whose career has been in a freefall since he was the centerpiece of Dallas' 2008 trade for Jason Kidd.
The Utah Jazz took 6'3" point guard Deron Williams with the third pick and can't be blamed for that choice, as the Illinois product has had a very productive pro career featuring three All-Star appearances.
Paul went fourth to the New Orleans Hornets, won Rookie of the Year in 2006, and in the seven years since has established himself as the best point guard in basketball. The Hawks, still looking for that franchise cornerstone, have been kicking themselves ever since; they're now targeting Paul in free agency and, in fact, violated NBA tampering rules by saying as much in a press release.
You probably know where I'm going with this. The NBA Draft is tomorrow night and Michigan's Trey Burke is expected to go anywhere from second to eighth. Brian has posted this before, but I want to once again draw your attention to Grantland's "NBA Job Interview" with Burke:
If YouTube is blocked or you don't want to watch the video, at the :32 mark Bill Simmons asks Burke to say which current pro is the type of player he'd like to be. Burke, without hesitation, says Chris Paul; look around for the various pre-draft content and this is his established ceiling. Simmons immediately fires back with what, at least from my impression, is the biggest doubt NBA GMs have about Burke's ability to become the next CP3:
The one thing about Chris Paul, though, is he's thick. When he goes down low, and he bounces off guys, they kinda bounce off him, too. The one thing I noticed with you in college, you would bounce off guys sometimes and you would take hard falls...
I didn't follow Paul's college career too closely, so I did three things after watching the above clip. First, I went to Burke's and Paul's respective NBADraftNet profiles, which has their pre-draft measurements.
Burke: 5'11.75" w/o shoes, 6'1.25" w/ shoes, 6'5.5" wingspan, 187 pounds, 3 bench press reps (185 lbs.)
Paul: 5'11.75" w/o shoes, 6'1" w/ shoes, 6'4.25" wingspan, 178 pounds, 10 bench press reps (185 lbs.)
Burke is, in fact, a little bit bigger than Paul was when he came out of college, and while Paul has clearly added muscle since he was drafted, his listed weight is still at 178 pounds. The difference is in their strength — Paul performed much better on the bench press.
The second thing I did was watch Paul's college highlights, and boy do they look a lot like Burke's:
At this stage in their careers, Burke and Paul had similar body types as well as similar games; both made their hay by dominating the ball, effortlessly finding ways to the rim, passing at a level that often caught teammates off-guard, and knocking down outside shots to keep defenses honest. Paul looks stronger at the rim than Burke and has a few more jaw-dropping passes in his arsenal; otherwise, they're practically doppelgangers.
The third thing I did was to compare their final college seasons statistically, a convenient comparison in this instance since both left school after their sophomore seasons. The full rundown can be found at StatSheet, which is the source for this (chart?) chart:
Despite a much higher usage (28.9% vs. 23.1%) and a longer three-point line (20'9" vs. 19'9"), Burke and Paul have near-identical offensive ratings; Burke boasts a better assist rate, fewer turnovers, and a higher eFG% despite attempting 28% of his team's shots against Paul's 20%. Paul has one major advantage, getting to the free-throw line at a much higher clip.
Simmons' point holds true, as far as I can tell, though it's an issue of strength, not size; Burke and Paul are near-identical in all other regards, but Paul was better in college at taking contact and continued to develop that talent in the NBA — look at his shooting heat map from this year, which shows his impressive efficiency in the paint and at the basket.
Can Burke make up this ground? I think it's possible. For one, his work ethic is tough to match, and obviously that's the largest obstacle between a player and adding strength. The videos of Burke working out before he arrived at Michigan are something I always point to when discussing his seemingly out-of-nowhere rise to the top of the college basketball world. For some reason I can't embed the video, but look at Burke's face as he's about to arrive at his after-school workout destination: the steps of the 94-foot-tall Hoover Dam* in Columbus.
Burke has also bulked up since he arrived at Michigan; while he's still on the skinny side, he's more defined than he was as a high-schooler and has added 15-20 pounds of muscle since arriving in Ann Arbor. That hasn't taken away from his game one bit—in fact, his finishing has improved—and he should be able to continue adding weight to his frame without losing athleticism or explosiveness.
Then there's the shooting aspect. While Paul was a very good three-point shooter in college (47.0% for his career), he's been just okay in that regard as a pro (35.6%, and the only time he's cracked 40% was in 2010 when he had a career-low 127 attempts). Burke's college numbers are worse, but they came under different circumstances — the longer line, of course, and also Michigan's late-clock "do something, Trey" offense. Rarely did he have the chance to catch and shoot; according to hoop-math.com, just 49% of Burke's three-pointers were assisted last year, while every other Michigan regular had a figure at or above 85%. If Burke ends up on a team with enough proficient ballhandlers to allow him to occasionally spot up, not just run high pick-and-rolls and choose to drive or pull the trigger, this could be an area where he's more effective than Paul.
Do I think Trey Burke will be better than Chris Paul? No, probably not. Paul's strength is a bigger asset at the NBA level than in college, and while I believe that Burke will improve in that regard, he's starting from well behind where Paul was at this stage — his around-the-rim finishing and free throw rate may never match Paul's. CP3 is also one of the league's best defensive point guards, and while a good part of that is his Burkian thievery—Paul has led the NBA in steals five times—it's also a product of his strength, which allows him to hold his own one-on-one against bigger guards.
Do I think that Trey Burke could become as effective as Chris Paul, just in a slightly different manner? Yes. The key here will be the development of Burke's outside shooting. We already know he has NBA range—just ask Kansas—and if he can become a 40%-plus outside shooter it'll open up room for the other parts of game.
I won't make the argument that Burke should go first overall—the Cavs have quite a point guard in Kyrie Irving, anyway—or even that he should go to Orlando at #2 (Victor Oladipo and Ben McLemore are both exceptional athletes with NBA-ready skill sets). With less-proven players like Nerlens Noel, Alex Len, and Anthony Bennett likely to go off the board before Burke, though, I think it's safe to say there will be at least one team dealing with regret down the line, and for a long time at that.
-------------
*Not to be confused with the better-known Hoover Dam on the Arizona/Nevada border.
Thankfully the NBA Scouts should do a far better job of looking at each player's strengths and weaknesses than sports reporters. I listened to a sports reporter the other day say he wouldn't want Burke because he wouldn't want a point guard whose can't drive and whose primary skill is shooting 3 pointers. I guess the guy never bothered to check Burke's assist stats or watch anything other than a few highlight reels of his play.
I'm going to insist that he bring those shoes that make him a quarter of an inch taller than Paul.
It's a good thing they don't let players wear hats when they're measuring height.
The very existence of "height with shoes" means that math education has badly failed in this country.
= 6'10
without hair = 6'3
with shoes and hair 7'2
I am definitely curious what kind of shoes he was wearing if they really gave him an extra inch and a half.
Glad you posted this Ace.
I don't think Burke's college stats are nearly as good as Paul's from the NBA perspective.
The shooting is substantially inferior - you can make excuses for Burke but the apples to apples compaison is pretty clear: 47%/84% compared to 37%/78% for 3s and FTs. Look at TS%, EFG - whatever the measure - Paul was, is, and likely will always be a better shooter than Burke. The excuses can work both ways here - Paul didn't have nearly the same NBA-level talent around him (or coaching), and was getting even more defensive attention and (probably) taking even fewer open catch and shoots.
The fact that Paul's 3% went down reflects the tougher NBA defenses. Burkes is likely to go down also.
The quickness is substantially inferior - steals are an imperfect measure of this of course, but Paul got TWICE as many (2.5 vs 1.3). FWIW, he also got twice as many blocks, got to the line more often. The eyeball test here doesn't lie - Paul is very fast and jukes people out of their shoes left and right, even at the NBA level. Burke's game is more mental at the same stage, he plays like a savvy vet and controls his body better than most 10 year NBA veterans. That's a big part of why he was so successful, not raw athleticism. But raw athleticism would be better for the NBA...
I love what Trey did for Michigan, but NBA scouts are right to wonder if his game will translate. IMO, his floor is pretty high (quality NBA backup PG) but his upside is closer to Jameer Nelson than Chris Paul. FWIW, Kevin Pelton at ESPN did a statistical comparison and the guys listed were DJ Augustin, Kemba Walker, Reggie Jackson, and Delonte West -- not exactly indicicative of top 5 value, even in a weak draft. To me, Burke will end up as the 7th-10th best player in this draft.
One thing I will agree with it is this - he's the best PG in the draft and anyone taking Carter-Williams over him is a fool.
The size isn't a big issue when it comes to defending other PGs. If the opposition's PG is posting you up, that's something you shrug at, even if it's someone who is good at it like Chauncey Billups. The problem comes on switches - and that's where Paul's size is somewhat mitigated by his strength. But as you say -- Burke could get there.
Overall - height is overrated for guards. MCW is getting all this hype, but the quest for the next Magic Johnson is foolhardy. Shaun Livingston is the only 6'6+ player I can think of that's had even moderate success as an NBA PG. Most end up on the wing.
Totally fair points, Mat. If I had to guess, I think Burke will end up somewhere between Nelson (on the low end) and Paul (on the high end, obviously) as a pro; I do think you're under-selling Burke's potential as a spot-up shooter in a league where that's becoming more and more important.
Totally agree on your last point. If Burke and MCW are both on the board for the Pistons at #8 and they go with the latter simply because he fits better with Brandon Knight—not the player I'd like to see them build/draft around—then I'll be one pissed off blogger.
If Burke is a defense's 4th or 5th priority - he'll get open shots. But him functioning as a spot up guy requires playing beside a Carmelo or Lebron type wing ball-handler and those guys are somewhat rare.
His shooting is good but not great and his size limits him defensively. He's not going to be Avery Bradley, Mario Chalmbers, or Steve Kerr. Nor is he going to get to the line like a Jaryyd Bayless. So what's going to get him on the floor? In my opinion, it's going to be his ability to function as a distributor. That will make or break him at the NBA level. While his vision is far from Jason Kidd's and inferior even to Darius Morris, his decision-making is truely elite. The guy simply plays smart and he does it every game. He finds the right balance between agression and patience nearly every possession.
I see him, ideally, playing on a team like Indiana, where his job is to get the ball to the right people at the right time. He'll be good enough at the other stuff to "not take anything off the table" but what he'll put ON the table is decision-making.
The way I look at it - being an NBA player means playing against an Aaron Craft caliber defender something like half the time. Burke really struggled shooting it against Craft, who probably won't ever play an NBA game. He also struggled shooting against MCW.
All that said - as a Pistons and M fan, I'll be pretty happy if he gets taken at 8. But comparisons to Chris Paul, despite their similar size, and high level of college success are as unfair as comparing Anthony Bennett to Charles Barkeley and Ben McLemore to Ray Allen, Nerlens Noel to Kevin Garnett. This draft will be lucky to produce a multi-year all-star let alone a HOFer.
I agree that it is highly unlikely that Trey ever reaches CP3's level. That said, I have a couple nits to pick:
1) I think your first point about needing a teammate like Lebron or Carmelo is hyperbolic. I think any team with a post threat and/or a really good penetrating wing player and good ball movement can get plenty of open 3s against most NBA defenses. There's no reason why the PG can't get some of those shots. Look at Jose Calderon. He gets plenty of spot up 3s and I wouldn't say the Pistons have any dominant ball handlers.
2) You're obviously right that NBA defense (both team and individual) is superior. That said, defenders can't get away with nearly as much contact in the NBA. I personally think that will make a huge difference. It could potentially negate the impact of playing against bigger, faster, stronger defenders. No way to really know until they play the games, though.
Melo and especially Lebron are rare talents, the othe guy doesn't have to be that good, but if Burke is a spot-up shooter just standing around someone else has to dribble/create/pass and it's not going to be another PG because that's not viable defensively. Trey can't be a shooting guard. So either it's a Ginobili/Monta Ellis/Kobe scoring guard who can initiate the offense or a very good scoring forward who can also pass/drive (e.g., Nowitzki, Pierce, Durant). I don't think a post threat is enough - they're too easy to double. Even if you have Olajuwon or O'Neal, someone has to initiate the offense. You need someone who can drive and dish.
I guess it depends on your definition of spot-up shooter. To me, Calderon is a distributor first and shooter second - I don't think of him as a 'spot-up shooter' at all, I think of him as a 'pure' point guard who can distribute and shoot when open. I wouldn't argue with that description for Trey at all. If the intended point is that Burke/Calderon don't need to drive a lot to succeed - O.K. I might buy that - but SOMEONE else will need to play that role on the team.
I didn't watch the Pistons much this year - but didn't Knight, Bynum, and Stuckey handle the ball a lot? I'm not sure that the Pistons roster decisions (guard-overload) and losing ways are anything to point to in regard to Burke being a successful NBA player.
I don't buy your argument about NBA defense being easier, no matter how they call it. Nearly every player, PGs especially, put up better numbers in college than in the NBA. I don't know why the officiating would negate the difficulty change for Burke and not others.
It seems like you're talking about him being a "spot-up shooter" as if that would be his only role. I was piggybacking off of Ace's comment which I think was making the point that spot-up shooting is a skill that could make him a productive player. I really see no reason why he can't initiate the offense, run pick and rolls AND spot up sometimes - that was the point of the Jose Calderon anecdote. To summarize, it seems like you're talking about spot up shooter as a role player, whereas I'm talking about spot up shooting as a valuable skill that a mulit-dimensional player could use to improve his value.
I don't really get the rationale behind your snarky comment about the pistons' roster problems. If anything, it further proves my point. Knight and Bynum were terrible (although Bynum had a very high assist rate). Stuckey is not a good passer on the drive (he tends to brick a tough layup attempt or draw a foul). I clearly never suggested that the pistons sucking has anything to do with Burke being a good player. I simply pointed out that a team with a lot of subpar ball handlers featured an excellent point guard who made lots of open 3s. Not sure why you felt the need to twist it into something else.
As for the last point, I never said that NBA defenses are easier. In fact, I said they were superior and you misrepresented what I said. That said, you make a good point about most players seeing their efficiency numbers decrease in the NBA. Perhaps I should temper my expectations in that regard.
Yes, I think Burke can be a multi-dimensional player. His shooting isn't good enough to get him on the floor in the NBA, but it's not going to force him off it either. I guess my point is he has to bring a lot more to the table than hitting open shots.
You implied that defenses would be easier (or the same) when you said that officiating differences "could potentially negate the impact of playing against bigger, faster, stronger defenders". That's all I was really disagreeing with.
Not sure it's becoming more important or less important. To me, it's more or less the same.
You had Fisher and Kerr win titles in the 90s and 00s, so there's been a place for that type of player for a long time. Now, a number of the league's best PGs (Parker, Westbrook, Rose, Rondo) are actually terrible 3 point shooters.
As has always been the case, you need to find a balance between guys who can penetrate and people who space the floor. Those skills can come from different positions.
I think it's clear that 3 point shooting is more highly valued (by most teams) than it was in the 90s and 00s. Teams are shooting more 3s and using analytics to find the best spots to shoot from. It's more important now because it's being used more appropriately than it was previously - I think that was Ace's point.
but that would come at the expense of 'old school' PGs who were the team's "quarterback". I think that old-school role is what Burke would fit quite well actually.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I fail to see why a player would be unable to quarterback a team, initiate the offense and still hit some open 3s.
Most NBA players are bad at something or other and almost none are good at everything. The guys who are are HOF-caliber players who can do it all (like Chris Paul).
I don't think Burke is good enough to create offense for others, drive to the hole with consistency, and hit 3's against NBA-caliber defenders. I'll be happy to be wrong, but I think he'll be good at some things (game management/decision-making), average at some things (shooting, passing) but below average in other areas (defense, finishing at the rim). Can he hit open shots - yes, but so can a ton of guys who can't get on the floor in the NBA.
Has the NBA changed? Perhaps. But if the change is towards guys who excel at shooting than that's not necessarily to Trey's benefit, because other players can do that one thing better than he can.
I feel like you're responding to someone else making a different argument than me because I never said he'd be able drive the hole consitency and be a great passer. I simply argued that you were undervaluing three point shooting and then pointed out that you can both run an offense and be the beneficiary of open "spot-up" looks.
But that goes to my point that someone has to be able to create. If you're saying it's not Burke - then it has to come from elsewhere and Burke has to do other things very well. For the Spurs, it was their PG who created - Tony Parker. For the heat is was their wings who created while their PG was, whoever, - Chalmbers or Battier or Miller could function in that capacity - they needed to play D and hit 3s. I don't see Burke as necessarily fitting in either role because his defense and 3s won't be good enough to be the Chalmbers type of player and his penetration isn't nearly as good as Parkers. I think he has to be have the ball in his hands a significant amount of time to be a good NBA player. That doesn't mean he has to shoot a lot but he has to move the ball around.
for the best PG for Drummond, not Knight. Burke and Drummond goes together well especially in pick and roll situation where Drummond is dominant as a roll man where he can use his size, freakish athleticism and explosive leaping ability to dunk from anywhere. Burke can make them pay for not hedging because of Drummond with his shooting whereas MCW's shooting is subpar.
You take the best talent available, not the best fit. Burke is clearly superior than MCW but MCW has higher upside(also higher potential to bust). MCW reminds me too much of Darius Morris. Both are big PG who can bully smaller G and has outstanding vision/passing ability. Both doesn't shoot well. Not sure if I want MCW for the Pistons. If any, I'd rather have McCollum than MCW at PG. McCollum can score and is a playmaker even though his number doesn't reflect it but he plays with terrible supporting cast.
Out of curiosity where are you getting some of your stats from? If I follow Ace's link, it shows that Trey actually has a higher eFG% (though it's really negligible at 53% vs 52.3%). Also it shows Paul having 1 block his sophomore year while Trey had 20.
I actually agree with your bigger point about Trey's NBA potential though. I think he can be a legit 3rd option on an NBA Title contender or the 2nd option on a playoff team, but that's about his ceiling. As Ace later pointed out on twitter, Trey's best comp is probably Jameer Nelson (who is a very solid pro, but nothing extraordinary).
Paul is here.
Burke is here.
Those numbers say Paul has a better EFG, 55 to 52.
I think Burke is more like a 4th option on a contending team, but that's a quibble. I think he could be a rich-man's Derek Fisher - a winning/smart player. Knows the game, makes the smart play and hits the big shot when called upon - but I don't expect him to be the hero-ball one-on-one player that Paul can be, but I think he can be great as a complementary player.
The Nelson comp works, which I brought up in my original post. FWIW, Nelson did sneak into an AS game, so that's not exactly a diss. Certainly better than Augustyn and Walker. In the right situation Nelson could have had a very impressive career. But far off Chris Paul.
Ace was looking at their respective final seasons, not their career numbers. That's where the confusion is coming from.
I find it foolish and unjust to compare the two players as PAul is ridiculous and one of the best players of the last decade in the NBA.
To me Burke's ceiling is a good starter, probably not an all star... and that is fine. I love the dude and appreciate everything he did here, but to compare him to Paul is just fluff.
I agree with the comparisons to Nelson more than Paul, as great as he was at Michigan I think in any other draft he is probably a late 1st rounder at best.
That isn't a knock on his skills as I think as a complete PG he is probably better than any PG coming out this season.
As far as the Paul being the best PG in the league, I would make the argument that actually belongs to Deron Williams, but that is just on mans opinion.
Burke needs to land on the right team I think to be really successful, Nelson was fine in Orlando with Dwight, Lewis and Hedo. Burke desperatly needs to land on a team that has a scorer or two where he can get a lot of one on one match up's due to switches and take advantage.
I would like to read that argument.
has something to say about your absolute assertion that Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA.
Burke isn't going to be Paul. It's not even fair to make that comparison. I love the kid, and think his NBA career will be long and prosperous...but he isn't Chris Paul. I do think he is better than Jameer Nelson in just about every way, though. I could see him putting up Damian Lillard type numbers.
the alleged reasons TB is not considered by some an elite PG. I think he is atheltic enough and will be very good on the right team.
I shared this in another thread but it seems to fit better here:
Joe D played with a guy quite a bit like Trey.
Isiah Thomas - 6'1 180
Indiana Stats - 63 G, 15.4 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 5.7 APG
Trey Burke - 6'1 187
Michigan Stats - 73 G, 16.9 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 5.7 APG
As a life-long Pistons and MBB fan (since the mid-'70's), I can tell you that this is not an apt comparison.
Trey Burke ranks as one of my top-five most favorite Michigan hoops players, but there is no chance that he has a career like Zeke's....regardless of the similarity of their college stats.
I also don't think Trey Burke will alienate the league's elite players, destroy the NBDL, and screw up an NBA franchise anywhere near as fast as Isaiah pissed off the Dream Team, took out the CBA, and hamstrung the Knicks. Their careers will be worlds apart!
I hate it when I forget to misspell "Isaiah"
Isiah Thomas was insanely quick. Very few NBA defenders could stay in front of him. Throw in his superior floor vision and how could he not be a good player in any era?
The Burke/Isiah comparisons are not very apt - two guys with very different games.
and it's hilarious. I love it. Totally unashamed to be to be the homer that he is
I find it hard to believe that Trey can only do 3 reps of 185 lbs. That is really poor if true.
i would call chris paul 'one of the best point guards in the league' instead of the best. he scores below what he should, and i think that westbrook and rose are better than he is, despite his amazing passing ability. ever since his hornets team lost that abismal playoff game to the nuggets (they lost by something like 50 points) it feels like CP3 has lost his edge. now it seems like hes guy who looks like a floor general and leader on the court, but now they say hes having locker trouble in LA. there was a time when CP3 was by far the best PG in the league and an MVP candidate (circa 2008) but his numbers and overall performance, to me, has diminished since then.
hate to knock Burke but that is a severe lack of strength for a big time athlete. How or if that even translates to the NBA game who knows but that is definitely going to be a red flag to scouts bc Burke is not a super athlete. If he can't get away from his man (like Craft stuck to him like glue) that he's going to have to atleast body them up and play through contact.
crazy bc THjr had some of the highest bench press of all players. I know diff players diff body types but you think they would have similar weight room programs from the S&C coach. Plus THjr is more wirey which usually translates to weaker lifting totals.
Like others said I'd rather Burke go to a better team and be asked to just run the O be a 3rd option type player. He is very smart and finds the open man. Him on the pacers makes them instant contenders. If he's asked to be a #1 or #2 option as well as create I think he struggles.
Comments