Where it comes to basketball, it comes to a synthesis of stats and the eye test for me mostly. I would guess that is the basis most people take in evaluating a player. I think stats are more of a mental thing where the eye test is more of an emotional one. Attempting to be objective, Jalen does better on the eye test than with stats. Some of his play and highlight reels can indeed evoke emotion. They can make you feel pretty good about his future. For me, most of his stats take me in the opposite direction. I think a lot of folks that post here on Clutchfans favor one over the other. That is, they are either a bit more taken by the emotion of the sport than the mental aspect of it or visa versa. I think this is human nature. So its no surprise to me folks here can reach radically different conclusions. In addition, whatever your bias is, emotion or mental, there is a tendency to look at the other to try and justify your opinion. I think that is human nature as well.
In addition, the eye test seems to be better at assessing flow and team cohesiveness. It also can take into cause and effects based on matchups. For instance, stats may show that so and so is a much better shooter. Of course, said shooter is playing against bench players. Another example is when a players attitude (like Tari’s) inspire the other players around him to play better or hustle more. Eye test comes into play a lot more for NBA coaches in the midst of a game. FO’s can use a combination of eye-test and stats to form opinions on roster make-up and cap management. Of course, they probably also take into account butts in the seats. Coaches probably use stats to affirm or reject what they are feeling during the game.
While I don't disagree, the eye test is also prone to ones subjectivity while stats are more objective. Prone meaning we tend to remember certain things over others. No one can remember every play vs every opponent and reliably assess the outcome objectively.
Statistics can also often not be used correctly when not accounting for things like confounding factors.
Reputation plays a role here. If a guy is said to be turnover prone, its easy to look for and remember his turnovers more readily. If a guy is known for being a good passer, we look for and remember his good passes more readily also.
No, the eye test should never be emotional. It is an objective assessment of what a player is doing on the court. Scouts use the eye test. This simply means they assess performance based on knowledge of the game. Sure there may be some level of subjectivity in terms of the different scouts or observers making the assessment, but it should be mainly based on knowledge of how the game is played. Did the player cut on the baseline when his man in the corner isn't looking or the defender comes out to defend the dribble drive in the paint? Did the ball handler pull up and shoot a jumper too early after a screen and roll when the defender ran over the screen instead of letting the play develop some more with the roll man? Did the player shoot the elbow jumper as his man sags off trying to cover the interior paint guy? etc etc. Often times than not people ascribe to perception bias judging players on the basis of emotion such as resentment or holding players to a certain place in time and expecting outcomes on this basis instead of analyzing what is actually happening on the court.
Perception/cognitive bias I used this example multiple times and it is a perfect example of perception bias. Fan X already thinks jalen Green is a poor defender. Fan X blames Jalen for a blown defensive play even though it was another player's fault. This happened in a game Vs Toronto last year. The full action showed Brooks ball watching as he ignored his cutting man from the perimeter and he didn’t communicate. Green had to cover the cutter. Then Brooks ran after the same cutter late instead of covering the wing. Now the wing is wide open and Green has to rush back to cover, which resulted in an easy driving layup for Toronto.
It is not just the eye test vs the stats test. Is that the regular season, the early playoff rounds, and the later playoff rounds are all essentially different styles of play and games. And in the later playoffs, you need guys who can just get buckets due to their innate talents. Jalen's has had numerous games and stretches where those innate skills suggest that he could actually be a guy to "get" those clutch bucket in a later playoff games against good defenses. However, his inconsistencies make us doubt if he can be a major contributor on a team that could even be in a position to need those plays. And then his inconsistent 3 pt shooting numbers make us question if he could consistently get those buckets in those situations or just be a toss up like say Russell Westbrook in the playoff clutch situations. Jabari, Tari, Cam, and even Amen to some extent have not had enough flashes to suggest they can create those buckets yet on their own consistently. They are all young so they can definitely grow into that, and maybe if the Rockets design an offensive system to help them all, they could do it. But they have not done that yet.
The "eye test" is the opinion you form of a player based on what you see. An opinion is, by definition, subjective.
The eye test can be very subjective, causing one to see what one wants to see and blocking out all other reasoning. It cries out, "Look at the larger context." Stats, likewise, can be interpreted with the same subjectivity problem. This is why both can help us assess what's going on. Jalen has improved a lot as a defender, and hopefully, when the season starts, we can begin to measure that statistically and with the eye test. Since this is a Cam Whitmore thread about "putting in the work," it's fair to say that Cam is growing as a defender. His summer league D seems better than last season's MVP campaign. Maybe we can watch how he bounces back after his last performance against Detroit.
Objective assessment based on what is actually occurring on the court meaning the observer simply notes what the player is or isn’t doing correctly according to the observer’s knowledge of the game. Like i said nothing in this world is completely objective. Not the Supreme Court. Not journalists. Not doctors. Not School Boards. But the point is you try your best to assess on the basis of your knowledge of the game not from emotion or bias. Metrics usually support what the eye test observes in most instances. And not everything can be measured. So strictly relying on metrics is a flawed approach. But if you already think a player isn’t “good” or you “hate” a player than your expectation of that player is likely going to negative. Assessments without a hollistic approach and filled with cognitive biases and emotion aren’t accurate or reliable.
Many of The comments and assessments on Cam are a perfect example of cognitive bias that aren’t necessarily reflective of what is actually occurring on the court. A thunderous dunk. A hard dribble. Playing with physical contact and aggression. These actions may have led some people to declare him a “potential all star”. Or the “best SG on the team”. But the eye test also showed Cam didn’t pass the ball. Metrics show us his assists% and pass% on drives were lower than Green. Eyes test also showed he forces his way in between multiple defenders often times with no where to go 8-10 fr from basket. His TO%, SF freq%, And1%, scoring freq% all lower than Green on iso plays. On defense he often doesn’t run back quickly especially after being dejected from a missed shot or TO. His man on ball defense wasn’t good last year as he consistently let his man get by. Most of his steals are from him gambling and jumping the lanes. There ain’t no metrics for these actions. This is an example of cognitive bias and the difference between perception and what is actually happening on the court.
Yes. This will upset a lot of people, but Jalen is a much better basketball player than Cam at this time. In my estimation, Cam is 2 years away from being a solid NBA starter if he continues to work on being a better team player. Jalen has to improve his shooting from all areas except maybe within 3 ft of the basket to be a star player. He is much closer to being a good player than Cam. In the end, Cam may end up being a better player, but I see no evidence that this will occur anytime soon. I think Jalen has a longer leash than most predict, but he definitely has to get demonstrably better at shooting this year while at least maintaining the other aspects of his game to be a Rocket after this year. A lot of it will be determined on if we are winning at a play-off contender level by the all-star break.
I’m not certain he needs to improve his shooting “in all areas”. He just needs to play his game and get better at what he does. Ja Morant can’t shoot anything beyond 14 ft. But he is great in the paint. He has a dominant floater game and he is a terror in the restricted area. Jalen does not have a floater game and that’s ok. He can develop one at some point. But the focus should be on what he does. He shot well from mid range and 15-24 ft but that could be better. His main focus should be 24 ft and beyond as he launched 600 shots from there. What’s encouraging is his ability to get to the paint and score as his scoring within 5ft and restricted area have both increased.
The great philosophical distances that have to be traveled to say that Jalen Green is not a poor basketball player right now. Who would have thought Clutchfans was capable of such prose? Move over Jack Vance, I got a Jalen Green to defend! We got caviar in March and a rack of ass in October, November, December, January, February, and April… (and this is what happens Larry) Prayers up for Malika Monk. How I hope to throw you in the face of that dork Evan Mobley and his followers who own train sets and legos. No more social media for you, Bro. I’ve seen enough of you and juicy Josh to last 100 lifetimes.
Sincere question. If hypothetically the Rockets make deep playoff runs the next few seasons and Jalen is a big part of it, would you actually be able to enjoy it? Or would you be more frustrated that you dedicated a lot of time to being wrong on the Internet?
