Sign in

johnbud.bsky.social

@johnbud.bsky.social
137 followers 202 following 1.1K posts
PostsRepliesMedia
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 11/06/2026
Not perfect. Using slider on left - what you rate players go up and down.Defense higher than 7% - say just a simple 50/50 - Draymond matches Steph, Magic/Steph drops down, Garnett/Olajuwon riset. "Fact" vs "Vibe" issues. Big impact on playoff success, injuries and luck. Factually true -doesn't sell
100
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 08/04/2026
So listening to All-NBA picks. @danfavale.bsky.social @granthughes.bsky.social - I know I’m a stickler on this for half-decade now - but at least ACKNOWLEDGE the numbers. please? Brunson (which Dan alluded to) is a “vibes pick”. And Booker not much more. Numbers can lie. But explain why. 2026 only.
000
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 07/04/2026
Here are a couple examples of “vibe All-NBA”. Booker and Castle pushed by Bill Simmons for All-NBA in recent podcast. . Simmons thought for Booker - no brainer. The numbers just don’t agree. Both comps 2026 only.
000
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 01/04/2026
There is definitely some unmooring. And definitely a large part is vibesession. But what about the most important items? Are these accurate?
010
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 28/12/2025
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.
000
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 27/11/2025
“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).
000
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 26/11/2025
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! :)
100
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 26/11/2025
@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.
200
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 17/11/2025
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).
000
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 06/09/2025
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
020
johnbud.bsky.social @johnbud.bsky.social · 19/03/2025
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?
000