‘I'm not answering that question': How AI — and how to use it — has become the NBA's biggest secret
The most unusual path to the NBA wasn't taken by some overlooked recruit or undrafted rookie.
Gregory Peim went from testing theories about the laws of the universe at the world's largest particle accelerator to unlocking the secrets of pick-and-roll defense and player evaluation for the Los Angeles Clippers.
Northeastern University theoretical physicist Pran Nath remembers Peim knocking on his office door 16 years ago as a soft-spoken graduate student. Peim wanted Nath to be his advisor while he pursued a doctoral degree in physics.
Over the next three years, Peim blossomed into, as Nath puts it, his 'star student,' a relentless worker whose projects became his passion. The best of Nath's protégés typically publish four-plus papers in prestigious physics journals. Peim published 13, studying the particle showers created by smashing atoms together at high speeds to glean new insights about dark matter, supergravity and other mysteries of our universe.
Peim's body of work helped him secure a flood of offers for postdoctoral research positions. Prestigious institutes from as far as Geneva and Madrid reached out to Nath to beg him to persuade Peim to accept their offers, which, according to Nath, is 'extremely rare.'
Had Peim seized the chance to go into research and academia like so many of his theoretical physics peers, Nath is certain 'he'd have been very successful.' Peim instead made the unconventional decision to apply his expertise in data analysis to basketball, a detour that set him on a path to spending the past 11 years working for the Clippers, most of that as the team's director of research and analytics.
The Clippers' investment in Peim reflects the modern NBA's obsession with mining new sources of data to gain even the slightest competitive advantage. NBA teams have cast a wide net in search of tech savants who can use AI tools to extract fresh insights, from optimal in-game defensive strategies, to the most effective lineup combinations, to which potential draft or free agency targets are being undervalued.
Analytics departments across the NBA are littered with former Wall Street financial analysts, strategic consultants to Fortune 500 firms and Google and Microsoft software engineers. The Toronto Raptors even snatched up an aerospace engineer who specialized in computational fluid dynamics after he sold them on the parallels between analyzing particle tracking data and player movement data.
As basketball analytics have altered front-office strategies, coaching methodologies and player development, NBA teams have become more and more secretive about how they use the heaps of data available to them. Yahoo Sports reached out to a half dozen teams asking them to make analytics staffers available in advance of this week's NBA Draft. They all either didn't respond or declined, citing concerns about divulging too many details and giving away their competitive advantage.
'Teams are very secretive,' said sports analytics pioneer Ben Alamar, who worked for seven years with the Cleveland Cavaliers and Oklahoma City Thunder.
When NBA teams first started dabbling with analytics, Alamar remembers many trying to hide their interest from their competitors by requiring new hires not to reveal who they were working for. Even now, according to Alamar, analysts 'seldom talk about the kinds of modeling they are doing in any detail.'
'The transformation of the data into information is highly proprietary, as is the manner in which the teams use the data-driven information,'Alamar told Yahoo Sports. 'They are always trying to protect the competitive advantage that they get from their analytics.'
(Dillon Minshall/Yahoo Sports illustration)
Russell Westbrook or Brook Lopez?
The analytics revolution that has transformed the NBA began in the early 2000s in an obscure corner of the Internet. Dean Oliver and other pioneers of the movement bounced ideas about pace, possessions and efficiency off each other on the APBRmetrics message board.
Whereas Major League Baseball front offices were already populated with Ivy League-educated statheads by then, the NBA hadn't yet embraced the idea that Moneyball philosophies could translate to a 5-on-5 sport without distinct pitcher-versus-batter matchups. Possession-based NBA stats were years away from going mainstream. So was the crusade against inefficient post-ups and midrange shots.
Mike Zarren stepped into that world in 2003 when the Boston Celtics made him the NBA's most overqualified unpaid intern. General manager Danny Ainge tasked the Harvard law student, quiz-bowl champion and statistics whiz with exploring how the Celtics could better incorporate data and statistical analysis into their player evaluation and in-game decision making.
Obtaining reliable data was a big early obstacle, Zarren said last year while participating in a panel discussion at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Zarren described typing 1,200 pages of NCAA box-score data into a spreadsheet while building an early draft model. He also recalled the ordeal of requesting NBA substitution data from a contact at the league office.
'Nobody had ever asked for that before,' said Zarren, now the vice president of basketball operations for the Celtics. '[The files] were stored somewhere after games, but nobody knew where they were.'
By the mid-2000s, NBA play-by-play data became more widely available, allowing for more evaluation of which lineups performed well together and which individual players impacted winning more than their box-score stats suggested. The scouting service Synergy also chopped up and tagged video clips of post-ups, pick-and-rolls, providing analysts a new data source to evaluate tactics and aspects of player value.
It wasn't long before the most forward-thinking NBA teams recognized the opportunity investing in analytics offered.
A few respected members of the APBRmetrics community abruptly stopped posting as NBA teams created full-time positions for them or hired them as consultants. Among those was Alamar, then a Menlo College professor with a PhD in economics, a talent for statistical analysis and a passion for basketball.
In 2008, the Seattle SuperSonics were debating whether to take Russell Westbrook or Brook Lopez with the fourth pick in the NBA Draft. General manager Sam Presti hired Alamar as a consultant to help answer what he considered to be the fundamental question: Could Westbrook play point guard?
Over several exhausting but exhilarating weeks, Alamar and intern Jesse Gould pulled up video of every shot the 2007-08 UCLA Bruins attempted. They charted the distance of each shot, whether a pass set it up, who threw the pass and whether the shot went in.
The goal, Alamar told Yahoo Sports, was to assess 'does Russ make the right decisions when he's passing the ball?' What was the likelihood that a player made a shot when Westbrook passed him the ball? And how did that compare to Westbrook's teammate and future NBA point guard Darren Collison? Or to other elite point guards in the 2008 draft?
The results of Alamar's study supported Presti's intuition that Westbrook could successfully be a primarily ball handler in the NBA after mostly playing off ball at UCLA. Westbrook scored better than Collison, according to Alamar. He also outperformed other elite point guards in the 2008 NBA Draft, with the exception of Derrick Rose.
At a pre-draft meeting with Presti and his full basketball staff, Alamar nervously presented his findings as straightforwardly and non-technically as he could. A month later, Seattle selected Westbrook over Lopez, the correct decision most would argue now.
'The evidence was not a slam dunk,' Alamar said. 'But it was a piece of data in support of the decision that Sam ended up making.'
While many influential figures across the NBA recognized that embracing analytics meant delivering better information to decision makers, others were more cautious or closed-minded. Analytics pioneers often sought to gain the trust of skeptics in their organization by using data to confirm a concept that person already believed.
Roland Beech got off to a rocky start in 2009 when he went from consulting from home for the Dallas Mavericks to becoming the NBA's first 'stats coach.' Tech billionaire and analytics aficionado Mark Cuban believed that Beech could only make a difference if the statistician sat behind the bench during games, attended practices and meetings and got to better understand the problems head coach Rick Carlisle needed to solve.
On the first day of training camp, Carlisle understandably didn't know what to do with a coach who had more experience running linear regressions than basketball drills. Carlisle only called on Beech to help when he split the team into groups of three and told players that the trio that made the fewest shots would have to run as punishment.
As luck would have it, the threesome whose baskets Beech was assigned to count included the Mavericks' two biggest stars, Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry. They both snarled at Beech that his count was off after an equipment manager briefly distracted him and he turned his back for two or three shots.
'The rest of the way they keep yelling at me, but I don't change my number,' Beech told Yahoo Sports. 'Then at the end we lose by one. They are just incensed.'
Each time Nowitzki zoomed past while running his up-and-backs, Beech recalls him growling, 'We have a f— stats guy who can't count.'
'That was my introduction to the NBA,' Beech chuckled. 'You would think I would have had the common sense to go with what the superstar said on this one.'
Over Beech's six-year tenure with the Mavericks, the debate over the usefulness of basketball analytics slowly faded away. The math nerds had won. The 3-point revolution was underway. Midrange jumpers were vanishing from postgame shot charts. Concepts like scoring efficiency and rebounding percentage were seeping into the mainstream vernacular.
Beech gradually gained Nowitzki's trust by helping Dallas identify its best lineup combinations, and find ways to exploit opponents' weaknesses. The Mavericks captured Nowitzki's lone NBA title in 2011 with a statistician behind the bench.
Recalled Beech proudly, 'The biggest compliment Rick Carlisle ever gave me, he said, 'I don't think of you as a stats guy anymore. I think of you as a basketball guy who knows stats.'
'That's when I knew I had made it.'
(Joseph Raines/Yahoo Sports illustration)
How to make data useful
The most important innovation of basketball's analytics era was the brainchild of two Israeli entrepreneurs with a background in military surveillance.
Gal Oz and Miky Tamir created a camera-tracking system known as SportVU that played an important role in shaping the modern NBA.
The SportVU system used six high-resolution cameras perched in the catwalks of NBA arenas to collect precise player and ball movement data at 25 frames per second. A laptop connected to the cameras then beamed back millions of lines of geometric coordinates to video rooms across the NBA.
The technology had already been used in international soccer and cricket before STATS LLC acquired SportVU in December 2008. STATS then repurposed the system for basketball and found some eager NBA teams willing to pay to have it installed in their home arenas, first Dallas before the 2009-10 season, then Boston, San Antonio, Houston, Oklahoma City and Golden State a year later.
The early adopters recognized the potential value player tracking technology offered, but they struggled to figure out how to extract a competitive edge from endless raw data. The reports that STATS fed to NBA teams included stuff like the distance a player ran during a game, the top speed he reached or the number of times he touched the ball, decent video board trivia fodder but nothing useful to a coach.
'If you were somebody who didn't know a ton about basketball and were told to provide some stats, that's essentially what they produced,' Alamar said.
While NBA teams brainstormed better uses for the player-tracking data, their one- or two-man analytics staffs often lacked the tools, training or most importantly time to perform such daunting tasks. Beech also recalls the system starting out 'buggy and unreliable' when the Mavericks first dabbled with it.
'The joke used to be,' Beech said, 'that if there was a bald guy in the front row, sometimes the system would mistake his head for the ball.'
The tech startup that helped NBA teams find value in the player-tracking data possessed a rare blend of engineering chops and basketball acumen. Second Spectrum was loaded with former men's and women's basketball players from places like MIT or Caltech. Much of its staff participated in weekly pickup games down the street from its Los Angeles office.
[Analytics] not the end-all, be-all, but it's part of the pie and it's become more prevalent in recent years. Every team's different in terms of how much weight they put in it. NBA agent Mark Bartelstein
'That was always the secret sauce for us — to find those people at the intersection between sports and cutting-edge tech,' said former MIT basketball captain Mike D'Auria, who led all business development at Second Spectrum until Genius Sports acquired the company in 2021. 'Recruiting technical talent is really hard no matter what industry you're in and then recruiting technical talent that also knows sports is an even smaller niche.'
When he became interested in using SportsVU's player-tracking data to measure aspects of basketball that hadn't yet been quantified, Second Spectrum co-founder Rajiv Maheswaran reached out to NBA contacts with a simple question: What would you like to know that right now you don't? By far the most common answer was how to accurately quantify which pick-and-roll defenses work best against certain teams and players.
To extract answers from the endless rows of player-tracking data, Maheswaran and his staff built pattern-recognition algorithms that assessed not only whether a pick-and-roll happened but also what variation. Did the ball handler accept or reject the screen? Did the screener pop or roll? Did the on-ball defender fight over the top of the screen or go under? Did his teammate drop or show?
Second Spectrum's ability to develop machine-learning systems that accurately identified and classified all those pick-and-roll actions was a game changer for their NBA clients. When facing Golden State for example, coaches could instantly find season-long data detailing which strategies had been most effective against a Stephen Curry-Draymond Green pick-and-roll and which players were best at executing them. Those coaches could then watch clips of each one of those Steph-Draymond pick-and-rolls if they wanted to verify the accuracy of the data.
'Knowing sport and technology, we were able to take this mountain of data and turn it into something that a head coach, a general manager, a sport scientist could use,' D'Auria told Yahoo Sports. 'We could speak the language of the sport. Especially in those early days when there was a lack of trust, we would come in and say we're going to help you do your job better. We're going to save you time. We're going to help you measure parts of the game that you care about.'
Camera-tracking systems were mounted in the rafters of every NBA arena by the start of the 2013-14 season. Second Spectrum continued to use machine learning to identify hundreds of complex basketball actions, from back screens, to pin-down screens, to isolations, to dribble handoffs, to closeouts.
The savviest NBA teams responded by expanding their in-house analytics staffs so that they could use the new data to more effectively prepare for specific opponents. Detailed pregame scouting reports from former San Antonio director of basketball analytics Gabe Farkas and his colleagues contributed to the Spurs holding LeBron James and the high-powered Miami Heat to barely 90 points per game in the 2014 NBA Finals.
'We were tracking things around how their players' shooting percentages fluctuated at various distances based on who was guarding them,' Farkas said. 'It was informing who was defending LeBron, [Dwyane] Wade and [Chris] Bosh and how closely they were defending them on jump shots and post-ups.'
The Spurs also used player-tracking data the following offseason when assessing how lucrative a deal they were comfortable offering free agent point guard Tony Parker. Aware that Parker had a lot of mileage on his 32-year-old body, the Spurs studied how often the veteran point guard blew by his defender, how deep he penetrated into the paint and how that compared to his previous history and to his peers at his position.
'We didn't want to pay for past performance,' Farkas said. 'We wanted to pay for future expectations.'
The NBA's player-tracking technology became even more sophisticated two years ago when the league announced a multiyear partnership with Hawk-Eye Innovations. Whereas previous tracking technology estimated each player's location using a single point location, the Hawk-Eye system provides pose data, capturing 29 points on the human body.
A bumpy transition from the previous system to the new one drew a cacophony of complaints from analytics departments around the league, but the NBA is hopeful the Hawk-Eye system will allow teams to analyze and measure movement in new ways. Evan Wasch, the NBA's executive vice president for basketball strategy, told Yahoo Sports the league is hopeful the 3D pose technology can be used 'to augment the way we officiate games.'
Analytics have become an increasingly crucial part of NBA personnel decisions as motion-capture technology and machine learning tools have improved. Agents and team executives often arrive at contract negotiations with an array of advanced stats in their quiver, anything from how frequently the player secures a rebound in traffic, to how often a screen he sets leads to a made basket.
'It comes up in every conversation,' longtime NBA agent Mark Bartelstein told Yahoo Sports. 'It's not the end-all, be-all, but it's part of the pie and it's become more prevalent in recent years. Every team's different in terms of how much weight they put in it.'
(James Pawelczyk/Yahoo Sports illustration)
Who does Cooper Flagg project to be?
It might be the most fiercely debated question ahead of this week's NBA draft.
Which past or present NBA player is the best comparison for presumptive No. 1 overall pick Cooper Flagg? Is he the next Kawhi Leonard? Scottie Pippen? What about a better-scoring Andrei Kirilenko?
In 2023, four quantitative economists published a paper introducing a new way to answer those types of questions, one that they argue is more effective than both machine learning and linear regression analysis. Megan Czasonis, Mark Kritzman, Cel Kulasekaran and David Turkington took a mathematical forecasting system they had previously found successful in finance and applied it to the NBA Draft.
To forecast a potential draft pick's NBA future, the economists start by compiling relevant data — anything from his height and weight, to draft combine measurables, to per-minute college stats, to his team's conference winning percentage the previous season. They then use a series of algorithms to identify what previous draft prospects were most similar and to make a prediction based on the weighted average of how those players performed in the NBA.
'We had success with applications in the finance world, so we're very confident in the methodology itself,' Czasonis told Yahoo Sports. 'Once we were able to apply it to some sample data sets and look at the efficacy of historical predictions we would have generated, that's when we realized this was something that could be valuable in sports.'
What Czasonis and her colleagues proposed is essentially a new approach to an old problem. Since the heyday of the APBRmetrics message board, analytics experts have been trying to concoct reliable methods of statistically modeling the NBA Draft to identify which prospects are going overlooked and undervalued.
The number of busts in every NBA Draft suggests that the perfect model doesn't yet exist. It has been hard enough for basketball analytics experts to create a reliable all-encompassing player performance metric for NBA players. The draft is even harder to quantify in that way given the data limitations in college and international basketball, the age range of prospects and the disparity in styles of play and levels of competition they face.
'That's why people say the draft is a crapshoot,' Farkas said. 'You can try to adjust for the players' ages. You can try to adjust for strength of schedule. You can try to adjust for different pace and style. But eventually you get something that is so mishmashed, so departed from reality, that it's not necessarily usable anymore.'
While the draft will always be tricky, NBA executives can take solace that the league's recent data revolution is trickling down to the college and international levels. Play-by-play data has become more reliable. Biomechanics evaluations for draft prospects are providing more consistent and accurate information. D'Auria anticipates the installation of player-tracking cameras in NCAA arenas before too long.
The NBA's primary analytical battleground the next few years is likely to be turning the Hawk-Eye 3D player-tracking data into a competitive edge.
Could a team use it to better understand shooting mechanics and the crucial biomechanical elements of a successful jumper? Or to track fatigue during games and optimize how long players should stay on the floor without a rest? What about to quantify who the most physical defenders are in the NBA and which scorers are best able to play through contact?
Whatever path teams choose, don't expect them to reveal any details publicly. That much was clear during one of the panel discussions at last year's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference when an audience member asked what the most underutilized advanced stat is.
Said Zarren with a chuckle, 'I'm not answering that question.'
Atlanta Hawks assistant coach Brittni Donaldson echoed that.
'Yeah,' she said, 'I've got competitors up here.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Apple iPhone 17 Pro: New Leak Suggests Startling Change
Apple puts its logo on the back of the iPhone, but you know that, and you can almost certainly call to mind exactly where it sits even without looking. If the latest leak is right, it's on the move. Apple iPhone 16 Pro: will the Apple logo move on the iPhone 17 Pro? The logo has sat in the same place since the iPhone 11 saw it move a little south compared to the position on the iPhone Xs and earlier. There was a good technical reason for the move: the wireless charging ring required precise placement to work, and the logo was moved to sit in the center, to provide a visual assist. A year later, with iPhone 12, this became clearer still with the introduction of MagSafe, with a ring of magnets in the phone and in MagSafe cases, to show exactly where to plonk the phone. Now, according to serial tipster Majin Bu, it will move further down on the iPhone 17 Pro. The report shows images of what it will look like and while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it being a bit lower, I find it surprising. Not from an aesthetic point of view, but because the report suggests that the MagSafe ring won't be moving, meaning that the Apple logo will no longer sit centrally in the magnets. This seems counter-intuitive to me, and will, Majin Bu says, have a knock-on effect in terms of the MagSafe imagery that appears, for example, on a transparent case with MagSafe magnets. Instead of the Apple logo sitting dead-center in the circle, the suggestion is that a partial circle will be deployed, so as not to bang into the logo. The report shows an image of this and (may I be frank?) it looks terrible. I'm not alone in this. Michael Burkhardt at 9to5Mac uses the word 'bizarrely' to describe Majin Bu's comments about the cases, though he also points out there is precedent to the claim. 'Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not I believe this. It could make sense with the entire top of the phone now being a single camera bar, but at the same time it's incredibly odd. That said, the centered logo placement of iPhone 11 also leaked through case manufacturers having to design around it, so there's a bit of precedent to the leak,' Burkhardt says. My gut tells me that the lower logo will correspond with a repositioned MagSafe coil. As time passes, more case manufacturers will need to make decisions about this, so more leaks may emerge.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
You Only Have to Pay for AdGuard Once to Eliminate Ads, and Now It's Only $16
The following content is brought to you by PCMag partners. If you buy a product featured here, we may earn an affiliate commission or other compensation. Ever feel like ads are taking over the internet? Maybe it's the banners that recount your latest online shopping trip or the video ads interrupting your YouTube binges, but it's enough to frustrate anyone. This AdGuard subscription gives you a much-needed break. During this limited-time StackSocial price drop, you no longer have to pay $169.99 for this ad blocker—only $15.97 with code FAMPLAN. It works on Windows and Mac desktops and mobile devices, but only on browsers. Finally, you can read articles, scroll social media, and watch videos without being plagued by advertisements. At the same time, AdGuard also helps you avoid accidentally clicking on harmful ads, phishing attempts, and malware attacks. If you're a parent, you'll also enjoy the option for custom content controls. With them, you can set up filters that block inappropriate websites or types of content from the backend to protect your kids online. Get access to AdGuard and stop ads in their tracks, plus keep your data private for just $15.97 (reg. $169.99) when you enter coupon code FAMPLAN at checkout. Prices subject to change. PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through StackSocial affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stocks That Still Look Like Long-Term Winners
Palantir Technologies is a booming business, but its stock price continues to defy gravity. Apple is a legendary name, but its AI efforts haven't impressed. Alphabet faces a double-edged situation in AI. 10 stocks we like better than Palantir Technologies › When you consider whether to invest in a company for the long term, you'll often find that stocks fall into two groups. The first includes stocks of companies that have done well. For those, it's about whether they can continue to perform at a high level. The other consists of flawed stocks, companies facing adversity or potential challenges that may deter investors. Palantir Technologies (NASDAQ: PLTR), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), and Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG)(NASDAQ: GOOGL) are three well-known technology stocks representing a mix of both groups. Palantir has been one of the market's biggest winners in artificial intelligence (AI), while investors wonder whether Apple and Alphabet are losing their edge. Here is the skinny on each name and why all three can still be long-term winners. Palantir Technologies continues to chug higher, racking up a blistering 2,100% gain since 2023. The company has become a leader in developing AI software on its proprietary platforms for government and enterprise customers. And since launching AIP, its AI-focused platform, in mid-2023, Palantir's growth has continued to accelerate. The company still has fewer than 500 commercial customers in the United States, a tiny fraction of the country's 20,000 large corporations. Then, you factor in Palantir's close military ties (government contracts accounted for 55% of revenue in Q1 2025) at a time when America is involved in numerous geopolitical conflicts, and it's easy to envision years of high-speed growth. Despite its best efforts, Palantir's business hasn't kept pace with its share price. The stock has rocketed to a forward P/E ratio of 245, which is excessive, to say the least, for a business expected to compound earnings at an annualized rate of 31% over the long term. Given its growth momentum, both in the government and with commercial customers, Palantir's business appears poised to continue winning. That said, investors will probably want to wait for some significant dips to buy the stock at a more reasonable valuation. AI seemed like a layup for Apple, with a wide-moat ecosystem spanning more than 2.35 billion active iOS devices worldwide. All Apple has needed to do is integrate AI capabilities into its iOS platform, and it would instantly be one of the leading consumer-facing AI companies, if not the leader. Yet Apple has struggled to launch notable AI features smoothly, and its underwhelming rollout of Apple Intelligence, its first attempt at AI, compelled the company to reorganize its AI team. The good news is that Apple's iOS remains one of the stickiest consumer ecosystems, which buys time for Apple to figure things out. People buy Apple products and use them for several years. The devices, whether it's a phone, computer, tablet, or watch, sync and work together. People become accustomed to iOS and develop a commitment to the ecosystem. Users may drift away from Apple eventually if it doesn't figure out AI, but it's unlikely that Apple's user base would implode overnight. Ultimately, Apple is a behemoth, a financial juggernaut with one of the world's most influential brands. While Apple may not deliver the same type of returns as in years past at a $3 trillion market cap, the stock should have a relatively high floor, based on the company's massive stock buybacks, growing dividend, and sticky business model. It's worth the leap of faith that Apple will solve its AI frustrations. Google's parent company, Alphabet, is facing some pressure from several directions. AI models have become popular enough to begin siphoning traffic away from traditional search engines, like Google. At the same time, U.S. regulators have successfully pursued litigation against Alphabet for anti-competitive practices, which could result in fines or even forced divestitures that would potentially impact its core advertising business. The adversity has one of the world's most prominent technology stocks trading at a P/E ratio of just 19 today. Yet, AI is arguably more an opportunity than a threat. Alphabet has integrated AI summaries into its search results, successfully monetizing them. Despite all the worries about AI, Google's ad revenue still grew by 10% in Q1 2025. Plus, Google Cloud is growing in size and profitability due to AI boosting demand for cloud services. If that weren't enough, Alphabet's autonomous ride-hailing business, Waymo, is continuing to expand its footprint across the United States and could eventually become a significant piece of Alphabet's business. When you put it all together, it seems that this technology giant will continue to remain a prominent force across the AI and technology space. That's an easy bet to make when the stock trades near its lowest valuation of the past decade. Before you buy stock in Palantir Technologies, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Palantir Technologies wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $713,547!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $966,931!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Justin Pope has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Apple, and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stocks That Still Look Like Long-Term Winners was originally published by The Motley Fool