I’m going to start the 2013 draft previews with the PGs and work my way from the perimeter to the bigs. Burke is the Wooden award winner and possibly the top PG available, so he seems like a good player to start the 2013 analyses with. With Marcus Smart going back to school Burke is generally considered the top PG out there. He led Michigan into the championship game and that boosted him from the fringes of the lottery into the top 5 in most mocks. David Thorpe at ESPN (insider) made the case for Burke as the top overall pick. Even the overly contrarian and stat-focused Ed Weiland got briefly swept up in the Trey Burke frenzy, placing Burke 3rd overall in his post-Tournament top 60.
Before I get into Burke’s prospects here’s a quick recap of the statistical benchmarks that have historically separated the best successful PG prospects: 2-point pct. over .500, P40 over 18.0, A40 over 5.0, S40 over 1.5, A/TO over 1.4 and RSB40 over 6.5. A minimal ability to hit a 3-pointer is also important. With 2PP, assists, steals and RSB40, the higher over the benchmark, the better the prospect becomes. Each benchmark a prospect falls below is considered a red flag and makes it more likely he’ll fail in the NBA. Burke only misses one benchmark, with a RSB40 of 6.2. That in itself doesn’t kill him as a prospect, but it does bring him down a notch.
What I like to do with prospects is compare them to past prospects with similar stats. In Burke’s case the skills that stand out on his resume are scoring and passing. He was over 20 points and 7 assists per 40 minutes this past season. Those are pretty impressive totals that few sophomore PGs have ever matched. Here are past NCAA PGs who also surpassed 20 and 7 in either their freshman or sophomore seasons, along with Burke’s numbers from this year.
|
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
A40 |
S40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
|
| Strickland, Rod |
584 |
533 |
20.0 |
8.0 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
7.3 |
| Bibby, Mike |
526 |
387 |
21.5 |
7.1 |
3.0 |
2.6 |
7.1 |
| Lawson, Ty |
582 |
361 |
20.1 |
8.2 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
6.9 |
| Anderson, Kenny |
544 |
410 |
21.8 |
8.6 |
2.4 |
2.1 |
8.3 |
| Douglas, Sherman |
556 |
327 |
21.3 |
9.3 |
2.1 |
2.4 |
5.4 |
| Williams, Jason |
483 |
403 |
21.5 |
8.4 |
3.3 |
1.5 |
7.3 |
| Knight, Brevin |
470 |
373 |
20.4 |
8.1 |
3.4 |
1.9 |
8.3 |
| Norris, Moochie |
483 |
424 |
24.5 |
9.3 |
3.1 |
2.9 |
9.1 |
| Singletary, Sean |
456 |
362 |
23.3 |
7.2 |
2.1 |
1.6 |
6.7 |
| Tyler, BJ |
494 |
365 |
21.1 |
7.5 |
2.7 |
1.8 |
7.1 |
| Hannah, Stefhon |
478 |
385 |
20.9 |
7.5 |
2.7 |
1.8 |
7.1 |
| Thomas, Chris |
416 |
385 |
20.5 |
7.6 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
6.6 |
| Burke, Trey |
506 |
384 |
21.5 |
7.7 |
1.9 |
3.0 |
6.2 |
I try to list players in order from best to worst. Ty Lawson is something of a guess at this point and could finish anywhere in the top 5 of this group before he’s done. The two statistics here that separate the successful players from the not so successful ones are 2-point percentage and A/TO. The more successful PGs posted a 2PP well over .500 and an A/TO over 2.0. The others missed on both, one or the other. Burke topped both numbers, though his .506 2PP is on the low side and suggests he may struggle some on offense. It’s also important to note that Burke has the lowest defensive numbers of any player in this group.
Next I want to take a look at the progression of Burke’s career at Michigan. Here are the numbers posted by Trey Burke comparing his freshman season to a month-by-month breakdown of his sophomore season:
| Trey Burke |
2PP |
3PP |
P40 |
A40 |
S40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Freshman |
490 |
348 |
17.6 |
5.4 |
1.1 |
1.7 |
5.7 |
| Nov-Dec |
620 |
383 |
22.1 |
9.2 |
1.4 |
3.8 |
5.6 |
| January |
481 |
351 |
21.3 |
8.0 |
2.1 |
3.9 |
6.3 |
| February |
532 |
442 |
23.2 |
6.6 |
1.7 |
2.9 |
5.4 |
| March |
400 |
362 |
20.7 |
6.9 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
7.1 |
The most important thing to take from this list is Burke improved pretty dramatically between his first and second college season. He improved his scoring, efficiency, passing and defense by quite a bit. This is a very impressive feat. Improvement is always a good thing for a prospect. If nothing else it suggests both a solid work ethic and the intelligence to adjust one’s game. Especially impressive is how his defensive numbers went from being substandard for a prospect during his freshman season to strong in March of his sophomore season when the competition was the most intense.
On the downside is the only time he was truly dominant as a scorer was during the non-conference schedule of his sophomore season, when the competition is generally much weaker. For that reason there are still legitimate concerns as to whether Trey Burke will bring enough offensively to become a solid NBA starter. Also a concern is that his best month defensively was also his worst offensively. The question that arises from this is whether concentrating more on defense hurt his offense and if he is capable of playing both at the level an NBA starter needs to at the same time.
Trey Burke is something of a mixed bag. In addition to the overall improvement, the optimist would point out that he had some excellent months where he flashed the ability to score, pass and defend at the level of successful NBA PG prospects. The pessimist would point out that overall the defense was soft and the offense was inefficient except for one brief stretch.
One more thing before I wrap this is a quick look at other PGs who were Wooden Award winners: Phil Ford, Jay Williams, TJ Ford, Jameer Nelson and Jimmer Fredette. What to take from this list is that PGs who have taken the Wooden award and were drafted in the top 10 have been much more likely to disappoint than succeed. This is a small sample and shouldn’t be weighed too heavily. But it might show that, at least for PGs, winning the Wooden can add undeservedly to their draft stock. The idea that Trey Burke is a top pick simply because he was voted the top player in the nation is just a wrongheaded assumption. Just as wrongheaded is any suggestion that his leading Michigan to the title game makes him a top prospect. Bobby Hurley and Mateen Cleaves are past examples of tournament success being a poor way to judge PG prospects.
In the final analysis I just don’t see a great NBA career in Trey Burke’s future. He even has some potential to become a bust. The only skill where he’s shown consistent proficiency is as a passer. Both his offensive and defensive numbers are a mix of mild promise and red flags. I like that he’s a smart player who obviously works hard at improving his game, but he has some physical limitations that can’t be ignored. I see Burke’s high end as an ordinary NBA starter. The player I have compared Burke to most often has been Darren Collison. After looking at his career and the skills he displayed more closely, I have my doubts that Burke will even be that good.