In this situation I trust the eye test more than stats.
Halliburton was a great off ball defender, but on ball he was average. Tre was better on-ball.
Analytics are nice, but just a tool. A good basketball mind has a good eye for the game. The other weakness of over emphasizing analytics in basketball is that offense impacts defense and vice versa. For instance, a team might be solid at making 3 point shots, but missed 3 point shots can lead to long rebounds and high % transition baskets for the opponent.
These are all fair points, but I did notice something looking back at the previous exchange.
@moores2 originally said Jackson was our best "defender" -- full stop.
The more recent post said Jackson was our best "on-ball defender."
I think the former is incorrect and not supported by either the stats or the eye test. Haliburton was way too good at way too many things on defense, and his loss tanked our DRTGs late last season.
Saying Jackson was better matched up one-on-one on the perimeter, though, is a much more tenable argument. I can see one saying he was better than Haliburton in that limited-but-important role.
Haliburton just did so much more on defense off-ball and on the boards. There is a reason NBA teams might take him in the top-five. He has the potential to be an elite
two-way player at multiple positions.
That kind of talent, potential, and the body to do it with is pretty rare for our species.