There is a lot of good psychology research regarding a similar theme.
The more detailed you are in your explanation of an event, regardless of accuracy, the more likely an observer will believe you. I could write stuff like, "Watch Ennis's bottom hand and the way he rotates it. Because he has a slight under rotation of the wrist, many of his shots are misplaced high and to right. This can be fixed by the coaches, but muscle memory is hard to overcome, so he will need to put in at least 500 hours of work before he learns proper hand placement."
And I could get a lot of people to believe me and start to consider me an astute observer of the game.