You know me too well. I need to stop repeating myself.

I’m much more optimistic than most….but I’m still a little miffed.

However, Ernie Grunfeld has made me eat my critical words many times before, so I guess there’s no reason to suspect otherwise this time.

Chalmers would have been great though.

I give it to ya…..you win the Foresight Award.

“Objective” means looking at his production and seeing what he’s already done. We’ve done that here, using this and thisas the data. The conclusion that has to be made is that, objectively, he stinks relative to his peers. The only area in which he stands out is with his shot-blocking (and maybe his three-point shooting, but do we really need that?). He’s a middle-of-the-pack rebounder (in a bad conference, no less), sports a putrid assist-to-turnover ratio, benched the least among top centers and doesn’t shoot many free throws. That’s an objective look at JaVale McGee.

A subjective look would be to say something like “he’s a hardworking kid,” “he’s the next Tyson Chandler,” or “he’s most likely in the top 4 best athletes on the team.” Another person could look at the video and see something very different. Looking at McGee subjectively means projecting something on him (whether it’s saying he’s going to be a bust or a star).

What you’re doing is looking at McGee subjectively. That’s fine, it’s a major part of projecting talent, but it’s definitely not objective. Objective is looking at production, and there, he falls short.