While probabilistic language generators have improved dramatically over the last few years, the automatic evaluation metrics used to assess them have not kept pace with this progress. In the domain of language generation, a good metric must correlate highly with human judgements. Yet, with few exceptions, there is a lack of such metrics in the literature. In this work, we analyse the general paradigm of language generator evaluation. We first discuss the computational and qualitative issues with using automatic evaluation metrics that operate on probability distributions over strings, the backbone of most language generators. We then propose the use of distributions over clusters instead, where we cluster strings based on their text embeddings (obtained from a pretrained language model). While we find the biases introduced by this substitution to be quite strong, we observe that, empirically, this methodology leads to metric estimators with higher correlation with human judgements, while simultaneously reducing estimator variance. We finish the paper with a probing analysis, which leads us to conclude that -- by encoding syntactic- and coherence-level features of text, while ignoring surface-level features -- these clusters may simply be better equipped to evaluate state-of-the-art language models.