u/young_frogger

In Westbrook's 16-17 MVP season, he shot .343 from 3 on 2.5 makes a game, and nearly 85% from the line on 10.4 attempts. Those are the numbers of a decent shooter. He had never been a sharpshooter, but he had a decent looking shot and put on a famous jump-shooting clinic in a finals game in 2012.

After the best shooting year of his career, some saw the potential for him to continue improving his percentages as his athleticism declined but his IQ improved. He could've aged gracefully.

But what happened post 16-17 was one of the most drastic, high profile shooting declines in the history of the sport, causing the rest of his career to be full of controversy at its best and disastrous at its worst. Normally, players become better shooters as they age and allow freak athletes like Westbrook to prolong their careers. Lebron is the most obvious example of this, but there are countless others.

17-18 saw him shoot 73% from the line, an 11% decrease. Most people pointed to a new rule messing with his routine. Now I'm a big believer in the importance of a good routine, but if you're a good shooter you're a good shooter. I could understand a 5% dip following the rule change, but 11? Not to mention he had many seasons to get used to the rule change and develop a new one. But things only got worse from there.

18-19 he shot 65% from the line, another drastic, 8% dip. He actually rebounded well the following season, shooting 76%, but would never crack the 70% mark after that, and pretty much hovered around the 66% mark for the rest of his career.

His 3-point and mid-range shooting were noticeably worse, too, with multiple seasons shooting under 30% from deep. This cannot be explained by the free throw routine rules. There were reports of hand/finger injuries, but most of these were two his left hand and again, there have been famous instances of players, like Kobe Bryant, playing through a broken pinkie on his shooting hand and still maintaining a decent shooting percentage.

Some people will point to his athleticism to decline which, to me, it was present, but he actually maintained his athleticism pretty well in the twilight of his career. He remained one of the more athletic guards in the NBA for his entire tenure and had some double digit rebounding seasons after 16-17.

Still, he wasn't the freak he was in his 20's. In theory this meant that defenders didn't have to play off him as much to respect the drive and contest his shots better. The reality is in 16-17 he was hitting all kinds of contested shots as he was the MVP and main offensive threat on his team. So he proved he can hit contested shots when his confidence is high. After 16-17 the vast majority of his shots were wide open as defenders completely sagged off him. He had never received that type of treatment up to that point.

Westbrook was constantly criticized for his shot selection in the latter portion of his career, but the truth is most of his shots were open and those were shots he was able to make at a respectable clip early on. So it's hard to blame him for taking them. But unfortunately when you are as bad of a shooter as Westbrook was at that point, nearly every shot, even open ones, are bad. But it was too late for him to turn into Rondo and though he was a good playmaker, he wasn't the b-ball IQ genius Rondo was. Up until the very end he was dynamic enough to "make plays", get to the hole and distort defenses, but he committed too many turnovers and missed too many shots to be anything other than an analytics nightmare. It all stemmed from the shooting decline.

Westbrook has always been known as a hard worker. He was allegedly in the gym working on his shot all of the time. He had time to heal his hand and finger injuries or make the adjustments needed to at least become decent again, if not quite as good as in his peak. He had 8 seasons shooting over 80% from the line. He knows what it takes to make shots and had built up the muscle memory. It's not like Nick Anderson, who got the yips following traumatic misses at the line in the finals. He just got that much worse.

Still, some people will say his confidence was shot and got the yips. You're telling me he had the yips for the entire second half of his career? Someone who was known for his extreme confidence and fearlessness was too nervous to make shots and couldn't adjust at any point during 8 seasons?

No, something happened to his shooting form. Was it finger/hand injuries? How does someone with hand injuries THAT drastic continue to be one of the best rebounding guards in the league and throw down vicious dunks? Upon the eye test, he didn't seem to struggle catching the ball or with being aggressive, and his hands seemed fine to me. There may have been subtle issues, but nothing that could explain the seismic drop off.

I'm not really sure what it was. Maybe he really was in his head all the time, constantly getting traded and hearing all of the chatter around him. Maybe his hand injuries were more serious than I thought. Maybe he didn't put as much time in the gym working on his shooting as we were led to believe. Whatever it was, Westbrook's career is the tale of two halves - the first half as a freak athlete and unique talent consistently improving his shooting, paving the way for him to become a savvy veteran guard who's still a great athlete.

Unfortunately, the second half is the story of a guy who went from a freak athlete to a just great one, who literally forgot how to shoot. I would say most of his issues, shot selection, getting traded, difficulty making as many plays and even his ability to get to the rim (harder to do when defenders are completely sagging off you), were a direct result of his drastic, unheard of shooting decline.

So what was it? Hand injuries? Form just unexplainably broken? Or was he, despite his outward bravado and seemingly confident demeanor, one of the mentally weakest players we've ever seen, shooting with a sense of fear for 8 whole seasons?

In Westbrook's 16-17 MVP season, he shot .343 from 3 on 2.5 makes a game, and nearly 85% from the line on 10.4 attempts. Those are the numbers of a decent shooter. He had never been a sharpshooter, but he had a decent looking shot and put on a famous jump-shooting clinic in a finals game in 2012.

After the best shooting year of his career, some saw the potential for him to continue improving his percentages as his athleticism declined but his IQ improved. He could've aged gracefully.

But what happened post 16-17 was one of the most drastic, high profile shooting declines in the history of the sport, causing the rest of his career to be full of controversy at its best and disastrous at its worst. Normally, players become better shooters as they age and allow freak athletes like Westbrook to prolong their careers. Lebron is the most obvious example of this, but there are countless others.

17-18 saw him shoot 73% from the line, an 11% decrease. Most people pointed to a new rule messing with his routine. Now I'm a big believer in the importance of a good routine, but if you're a good shooter you're a good shooter. I could understand a 5% dip following the rule change, but 11? Not to mention he had many seasons to get used to the rule change and develop a new one. But things only got worse from there.

18-19 he shot 65% from the line, another drastic, 8% dip. He actually rebounded well the following season, shooting 76%, but would never crack the 70% mark after that, and pretty much hovered around the 66% mark for the rest of his career.

His 3-point and mid-range shooting were noticeably worse, too, with multiple seasons shooting under 30% from deep. This cannot be explained by the free throw routine rules. There were reports of hand/finger injuries, but most of these were two his left hand and again, there have been famous instances of players, like Kobe Bryant, playing through a broken pinkie on his shooting hand and still maintaining a decent shooting percentage.

Some people will point to his athleticism to decline which, to me, it was present, but he actually maintained his athleticism pretty well in the twilight of his career. He remained one of the more athletic guards in the NBA for his entire tenure and had some double digit rebounding seasons after 16-17.

Still, he wasn't the freak he was in his 20's. In theory this meant that defenders didn't have to play off him as much to respect the drive and contest his shots better. The reality is in 16-17 he was hitting all kinds of contested shots as he was the MVP and main offensive threat on his team. So he proved he can hit contested shots when his confidence is high. After 16-17 the vast majority of his shots were wide open as defenders completely sagged off him. He had never received that type of treatment up to that point.

Westbrook was constantly criticized for his shot selection in the latter portion of his career, but the truth is most of his shots were open and those were shots he was able to make at a respectable clip early on. So it's hard to blame him for taking them. But unfortunately when you are as bad of a shooter as Westbrook was at that point, nearly every shot, even open ones, are bad. But it was too late for him to turn into Rondo and though he was a good playmaker, he wasn't the b-ball IQ genius Rondo was. Up until the very end he was dynamic enough to "make plays", get to the hole and distort defenses, but he committed too many turnovers and missed too many shots to be anything other than an analytics nightmare. It all stemmed from the shooting decline.

Westbrook has always been known as a hard worker. He was allegedly in the gym working on his shot all of the time. He had time to heal his hand and finger injuries or make the adjustments needed to at least become decent again, if not quite as good as in his peak. He had 8 seasons shooting over 80% from the line. He knows what it takes to make shots and had built up the muscle memory. It's not like Nick Anderson, who got the yips following traumatic misses at the line in the finals. He just got that much worse.

Still, some people will say his confidence was shot and got the yips. You're telling me he had the yips for the entire second half of his career? Someone who was known for his extreme confidence and fearlessness was too nervous to make shots and couldn't adjust at any point during 8 seasons?

No, something happened to his shooting form. Was it finger/hand injuries? How does someone with hand injuries THAT drastic continue to be one of the best rebounding guards in the league and throw down vicious dunks? Upon the eye test, he didn't seem to struggle catching the ball or with being aggressive, and his hands seemed fine to me. There may have been subtle issues, but nothing that could explain the seismic drop off.

I'm not really sure what it was. Maybe he really was in his head all the time, constantly getting traded and hearing all of the chatter around him. Maybe his hand injuries were more serious than I thought. Maybe he didn't put as much time in the gym working on his shooting as we were led to believe. Whatever it was, Westbrook's career is the tale of two halves - the first half as a freak athlete and unique talent consistently improving his shooting, paving the way for him to become a savvy veteran guard who's still a great athlete.

Unfortunately, the second half is the story of a guy who went from a freak athlete to a just great one, who literally forgot how to shoot. I would say most of his issues, shot selection, getting traded, difficulty making as many plays and even his ability to get to the rim (harder to do when defenders are completely sagging off you), were a direct result of his drastic, unheard of shooting decline.

So what was it? Hand injuries? Form just unexplainably broken? Or was he, despite his outward bravado and seemingly confident demeanor, one of the mentally weakest players we've ever seen, shooting with a sense of fear for 8 whole seasons?

I mean my god. This man pays so much attention to detail in every shot, is an absolute master of his craft, yet with fight scenes he just seems to half ass it. Why? Just outsource to a better fight choreographer at this point. Get Jackie Chan on the phone. Most battle scenes just showed Matt Damon or whoever else running around slowly slitting someone's throat with zero resistance or awkwardly throwing someone. Why is every fight slow and lethargic? I don't know if I saw Matt Damon get into a real fighting stance a single time. Truly zero realism or "epicness". Which is disappointing because there was so much potential given the budget, number of actors and extras on set, awesome looking armor and setting, etc. He is actually good at filming the setting for a battle and setting it up, it's just the choregraphy itself that needs to be changed.

There was almost no actual fight choreography other than when Tom Holland learned how to do a counter for the first time (great understanding of sword fighting and foreshadowing skills, Nolan, yet we didn't see it for the rest of the movie?) It's like Nolan thinks so analytically, he thinks because he introduced it at the beginning as foreshadowing and showed it again, that means he's completed the fight scene formula. That is not how it works. The final showdown was so goofy - the fight between Tom Holland and the guy dropping spears down made no sense. Why wouldn't he just kill him before dropping the spears? Matt Damon fighting 100 men at once made no sense. None of it felt remotely real. And no epic showdown between Matt Damon and Robert Pattinson at the end besides Matt Damon muttering some corny shit truly brought flashbacks to Dark Knight Rises: "I came back to stop you" followed by 4 or 5 slow motion punches and blocks.

Again, good movie, great director, but this is a glaring weakness that brings the movie down from a 10/10 for me. Especially given that fighting scenes and battles were a significant part of the film.

I mean my god. This man pays so much attention to detail in every shot, is an absolute master of his craft, yet with fight scenes he just seems to half ass it. Why? Just outsource to a better fight choreographer at this point. Get Jackie Chan on the phone. Most battle scenes just showed Matt Damon or whoever else running around slowly slitting someone's throat with zero resistance or awkwardly throwing someone. Why is every fight slow and lethargic? I don't know if I saw Matt Damon get into a real fighting stance a single time. Truly zero realism or "epicness". Which is disappointing because there was so much potential given the budget, number of actors and extras on set, awesome looking armor and setting, etc. He is actually good at filming the setting for a battle and setting it up, it's just the choregraphy itself that needs to be changed.

There was almost no actual fight choreography other than when Tom Holland learned how to do a counter for the first time (great understanding of sword fighting and foreshadowing skills, Nolan, yet we didn't see it for the rest of the movie?) It's like Nolan thinks so analytically, he thinks because he introduced it at the beginning as foreshadowing and showed it again, that means he's completed the fight scene formula. That is not how it works. The final showdown was so goofy - the fight between Tom Holland and the guy dropping spears down made no sense. Why wouldn't he just kill him before dropping the spears? Matt Damon fighting 100 men at once made no sense. None of it felt remotely real. And no epic showdown between Matt Damon and Robert Pattinson at the end besides Matt Damon muttering some corny shit truly brought flashbacks to Dark Knight Rises: "I came back to stop you" followed by 4 or 5 slow motion punches and blocks.

Again, good movie, great director, but this is a glaring weakness that brings the movie down from a 10/10 for me. Especially given that fighting scenes and battles were a significant part of the film.

For starters, I am 33-years-old. That alone is just a sign that this game is for me. Some of my favorite games of all time include Pokemon when I was young, Baldur's Gate 3, and Witcher 3. I have also played a lot of souls-like games with parry and dodge mechanics. This game seems like it combines the elements of all of my favorite games.

I can tell, already, that this an artistic, musical and narrative masterpiece. I am so excited because I've been searching for a truly "magical" all-encompassing game for a while. So excited for the journey ahead!

NBA players are better today. Nearly everyone can shoot, dribble and pass better than in the decades' past. Players are more athletic. Defensive and offensive schemes are more sophisticated, etc.

Because of how the game has evolved, many people agree that big men with back-to-the-basket games but not much else are considered obsolete. Shooting and defensive versatility are far more important for bigs. The ability to score in the post has become just one tool in the tool kit as opposed to a primary focus.

As a result, you think of guys like Karl Malone who was a top 3 or so player in the league during his peak, and it's hard to see him being anywhere close to that today.

If you ask this question about a guy like Michael Jordan, a freak athlete with unbelievable footwork and defense who was the clear best player in the league for a decade, the question as to whether he'd still be the best (of course, he'd still be great) today comes down to the question: could he develop a 3-point shot?

But I also think about how good other all-time great shooters would do in today's league. Take one of my favorite players ever - Ray Allen. A great athlete in his prime, one of the best off-ball players in league history second only to Steph, a lightning-fast trigger who shot 40% from 3 and 90% from the line. He could also handle the ball and make the right pass. There is no question he'd be an incredible asset to any team today.

But does he become better than he was in his prime? On the one hand, his main skillset is more highly valued in today's league. On the other hand, there are far more good shooters. You obviously have guys like Steph Curry, who makes him, by default, no longer the best shooter in the league. Ray used to be the shooter.

He faced competition from guys like Peja, Kyle Korver, and Steve Nash in his day. But the list of "pure shooters" was a lot smaller. Nowadays, you have stars like Anthony Edwards putting up 10+ 3's a game at a 40% clip with elite athleticism and dribbling. You have sharpshooters like Kennard, Duncan Robinson, and pre-washed Klay Thompson. You have guys like Desmond Bane: big, strong, can shoot and handle the ball well, and a bunch of random 3 and D guys that can light it up on a given night. Just look at OKC's roster. Look at Aaron Nesmith hitting 5 3's in a few minutes in last year's playoffs. You have guys like Devin Booker who is an elite shooter and shot creator. Tyler Herro, Damian Lillard, James Harden, Donovan Mitchell, the list goes on for the number of guys who utilize the 3-point shot as a primary weapon who have better ball-handling and passing skills than Ray.

In his prime, Ray was one of the only guys who used the 3-point shot as a primary weapon. In today's league, he becomes less "special" in that sense.

So my question for Ray becomes - does he take more or less 3's and does his percentage improve? And does he score more points than he did back then because of the faster pace?

Because his skills are so valuable, teams are going to work to get him shots. But because he is likely to share the court with multiple other guys who can hit 3's, do they take shots away from him? Does his percentage go up because he's sharing the court with more shooters or does it go down because teams have gotten better at defending the 3, forcing him to defer?

In my opinion the question posed for Michael Jordan: could he develop a 3-point shot is different for guys like Ray Allen. It becomes - can he improve his handle with "modern" dribbling training? Can he develop a nice stepback and get more shots off the dribble rather than just off the catch?

At his peak, Ray was maybe a top 10-15 player in the league. Would he be that today? It's tempting to say yes, but if you think about how good the top 10-15 players are today and everything they bring to the table, it becomes tough. He needs to better than guys like Donovan Mitchell.

He has a quick enough release that he'd get a decent number of attempts per game off of catch-and-shoot and off-ball movement, but to be a top 10-15 player, he'd need to be putting up 10+ 3's a game and maintain his accuracy. To put up 10 3's a game you need to be able to create 3's off the dribble, it's as simple as that. You rarely see pure catch-and-shoot players "go off" over the course of a 7 game series once defenses hone in on them.

It's a fun thought experiment that can also be applied to guys like Reggie Miller. For me, I'd like to think that Ray would be capable of improving his handle and become an absolute force in today's league. I tend to give the benefit of doubt to all-time greats, just like I'd give MJ the benefit of the doubt that he could develop a respectable 3-point shot.

I'm currently saving up for a "fun" car. Realistically I will be able to "responsibly" afford it in about a year. I grew up outside of America and have never gotten to test-drive Miatas or Mustangs, but from what I've read about them and my general impressions of them, my pick would be between those two. (Obviously I will test drive before purchasing.)

My understanding based on reading - the Miata is one of the best driving experiences ever engineered. Mustang has more power and a "masculine" feel, while being a more practical vehicle. Both cars are reliable and affordable as far as sporty cars go.

Context so people can get an impression of what I like

I currently own a CX5 and a Toyota Avalon, and I love both cars for different reasons, which is making it harder for me to decide between the Miata and Mustang. I also own a Ram truck (live in a pretty rural area now, hence why I'm able to own so many vehicles) which takes care of all of my serious hauling and towing needs. Unfortunately, I can't sell either of my cars because I let me SO drive whichever one I'm not driving.

The Reddit Mazda Glazers are right - Mazda really does have fantastic driving dynamics and nice interiors - my CX5 drives like a nimble Sedan and you can really "feel" the road. On the other hand, I do love my Avalon's powerful V6 engine, interior comfort and it has fantastic cargo space for a Sedan. I like the fact that it's quieter over bumps than the CX5 (a result of Mazda's tightly geared suspension systems).

Cars I've owned and my impressions:

Lexus CT200h hatchback - good car with super luscious interior but a pretty muted driving experience. Probably wouldn't buy again.

Honda Civic Si and VW Golf GTI - honestly these were both great and fun-to-drive cars and I never had any reliability issues with either.

Kia Optima - was ok until about 100k miles then had all sorts of problems, overall pretty bad, but it was a pretty old model.

Toyota Echo - my first car my parents got for me, small, nimble and reliable, will always hold a special place in my car but not something I'd get today.

Other factors influencing my decision:

I don't really want a soft-top convertible but the hard-top Miata's seem significantly pricier. But for that reason I'd probably steer clear of the Mustang convertibles too.

I'm open to both manuals and automatics. I really prefer manual gear shifts on motorcycles and side-by-sides, and when I drive my relative's stick-shift cars I like them, but I'm not as experienced or as skillful driving stick shift cars as they are and could see it being a problem on difficult roads and high-traffic areas on road trips. If I owned a stick shift I'm sure my skills would improve, so also open to suggestions there. For enthusiasts: Does the "fun" factor make owning a stick shift worth it?

I really prefer to buy used with cash and I hate making car payments, just a me-thing. So whichever car has a more customer-friendly used market as a plus. Based on my impressions, that seems to favor the Mustang.

I'm not the most handy guy and dislike doing lots of maintenance, so reliability is very important to me. I also don't really enjoy putting time and money into modding. Because of that reason I'd like a car that has good stock speakers and components, but I'm fine with buying used cars with mods as long as they're good.

I'm not a huge speed demon and don't care too much about top-end performance. Power and speed are nice to have, but I don't need turbochargers at the expense of reliability and simplicity and in the Mustang's case, V6 would be plenty for me, especially if it saves me money. As long as the car is generally fun to drive and has a "cool aura", and importantly, a nice-sounding engine with a somewhat quiet cabin, that's fine with me.

I value the superior practicality of the Mustang, but also I think that cargo space is pretty overrated. I drive to and from work with basically zero cargo and no other passengers most days, and have other vehicles with cargo space, so in that sense I think the Miata would be fine?

I love feeling the wind in my face, but nearly half the year is not convertible friendly and I also enjoy driving with the windows up, and listening to audiobooks, podcasts and music on long drives. For this, the Avalon is better than my CX5 with its quieter cabin and superior speaker system, and I could see that being a problem with the Miata. I also have side-by-sides and motorcycles for the full wind experience.

Although Miata and Mustang are at the top of my list, nothing is set in stone so if based on my preferences someone can suggest something better geared towards my indecisive wants and needs (Chargers/Challengers, Camaros, European convertibles etc.) I'm all ears!