johnbud.bsky.social
@johnbud.bsky.social
For what it is worth, AI is great for research. Attached is an example. Right now, every time someone mentions Harden and playoffs. All that analysts repeat ad nauseum is “gamy, game 7, game 7”. Especially Zach the Hack Lowe.?It’s a calling card. But stats - what AI is good at -proves that untrue.
December 28, 2025 at 5:55 PM
For what it is worth, AI is great for research. Attached is an example. Right now, every time someone mentions Harden and playoffs. All that analysts repeat ad nauseum is “gamy, game 7, game 7”. Especially Zach the Hack Lowe.?It’s a calling card. But stats - what AI is good at -proves that untrue.
“Not sure why I’m bothering”. I agree. I care about reality as reflected in production and real numbers. You don’t seem to, or want to cherry pick numbers, or disreregard #s when they don’t match your opinion. “Curry clearly better defender”. Tell that to last years #s. (DPM).
November 27, 2025 at 5:10 AM
You add Donavan to the mix with Curry, Brunson - again, you see from a stats perspective how 'media pull' enters into the 'impact equation, leaving actual impact on the court in the dust. Donavan - better pts, better advanced numbers, MORE WINS. Still Curry & Brunson higher. 'IMPACT' goes far! :)
November 26, 2025 at 10:09 PM
You add Donavan to the mix with Curry, Brunson - again, you see from a stats perspective how 'media pull' enters into the 'impact equation, leaving actual impact on the court in the dust. Donavan - better pts, better advanced numbers, MORE WINS. Still Curry & Brunson higher. 'IMPACT' goes far! :)
@michaelvpina.bsky.social So, these lists are fun - but I get my fun pointing out the inconsistencies and double standards! Let's start with Brunson/Harden. So from a pure NUMBERS perspective - Harden is far ahead of Brunson. Harden is 'better', from efficiency, rebounds, assists, etc.
November 26, 2025 at 9:55 PM
@michaelvpina.bsky.social So, these lists are fun - but I get my fun pointing out the inconsistencies and double standards! Let's start with Brunson/Harden. So from a pure NUMBERS perspective - Harden is far ahead of Brunson. Harden is 'better', from efficiency, rebounds, assists, etc.
Totally agree on MVP - only Shai, Jokic, Luka, Giannis, and now maybe Wemby are in the discussion. But it gets interesting with, say Brunson. Given market size, Brunson clutch shooting, attractiveness of his game, narrative favors Brunson, though Harden numbers clearly better. (Right now).
November 17, 2025 at 5:51 AM
Totally agree on MVP - only Shai, Jokic, Luka, Giannis, and now maybe Wemby are in the discussion. But it gets interesting with, say Brunson. Given market size, Brunson clutch shooting, attractiveness of his game, narrative favors Brunson, though Harden numbers clearly better. (Right now).
I mean - Norway isn’t the best example here. Hydropower, while technically renewable, is of a different kind that wind/solar. And 88% comes from hydropower, which is limited by geographic luck. Not repeatable. Counter - curated fact, but at least a fact. Not the straight lies of Trump administration
September 6, 2025 at 10:03 PM
I mean - Norway isn’t the best example here. Hydropower, while technically renewable, is of a different kind that wind/solar. And 88% comes from hydropower, which is limited by geographic luck. Not repeatable. Counter - curated fact, but at least a fact. Not the straight lies of Trump administration
Michael - I have ONE PRESSING AND URGENT QUESTION for you. It looks like you CHANGE YOUR CRITERIA on MVP, with NO CONSISTENCY. 2019 critieria would mean Shai today. 2025 criteria would mean Harden in 2019. URGENT QUESTION: WHY? As an analyst why do you not have consistent criteria year to year?
March 19, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Michael - I have ONE PRESSING AND URGENT QUESTION for you. It looks like you CHANGE YOUR CRITERIA on MVP, with NO CONSISTENCY. 2019 critieria would mean Shai today. 2025 criteria would mean Harden in 2019. URGENT QUESTION: WHY? As an analyst why do you not have consistent criteria year to year?