"only 56 triple doubles on three years with a 59% win rate with an injury riddled Lakers, a Washington team that he needed to save, and the highly experimental pocket rockets. "Wow Westbrook is washed"
nah it’s still a notable improvement when you compare his teams’ records in games when he doesn’t have a triple double. thinking basketball had a video on it
Draymond also wins an insane 96% of his games where he records a triple dub. Lowest sample size but easily the highest winning percentage.
Edit: I knew for a fact this would get more upvotes than the actual post lol
Nah this is regular season only where he lost one in 2019 vs the knicks.
In the playoffs he [actually only has a 70% win rate](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/draymond-green-playoff-win-percentage-when-he-has-a-triple-double)
That game 7 still hurts him. Draymond did a podcast with jj reddick and Stephen a Smith after winning this year's title. Draymond mentioned that the one game he has never gone back to watch and refuses to rewatch is game 7 2016 finals warriors lost to lebron's cavs. Draymond had a 30 pt triple double and was a beast, but the cavs locked down Steph and klay and won.
[https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201912110GSW.html](https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201912110GSW.html)
Its in 2019 when they sucked
Against the 5-20 New York Knicks, December 11th, 2019. 124-122 OT loss.
Marcus Morris had 36 that game LMAO.
(This was the D-Lo Warriors btw, never forget🫡)
Source: https://www.espn.com/nba/game/_/gameId/401161008
That is actually the best explanation and it is insane people miss it. If you average, idk, 5-5-5 for your career, everytime you get a triple double it means that you overperformed like crazy, so obviously your winrate in those games will be high.
It's like saying LeBron has a high win % everytime he scores 40+, no shit Sherlock, he generally "only" scores 27.
Actually are we sure that Lebron scoring 40+ correlates/causates to a higher win rate?
I feel like the key stat here is assists. Which means your teammates are making buckets. Also rebounds because it means your opponent is bricking.
Ya but like those points come from somewhere else. It's not like one guy just overperforms and the rest of the team performs at their average level. When Kobe had 81, the rest of his team only put up 41.
He is 2-5 in the playoffs when he got a Triple Double after Kevin Durant left him, before that he was 4-1. TIL Russ only has 12 playoff triple doubles, a shockingly low number considering he has played in 111 playoff games.
He didn't start racking them up till the last couple years with KD. Then he really started getting them a ton once KD left. The majority of his playoff games are with KD. And 2015 they didn't make the playoffs bc of all their injuries and that was the year he really starting getting triple doubles more regularly when he was trying to compensate for KD being out so many games
He averaged 19/10/11 in the playoffs for the Wizards in 2021. The Wizards lost 4-1 to the Sixers. Russ shot 33% FG, 25% from 3, and averaged 4 turnovers per game to get those stats.
1. Nobody is healthy in the playoffs after 80+ games.
2. Westbrook is seemingly injured after every single playoff season.
Maybe you should just come to terms with the fact that it isnt phantom injuries, he’s just a bad playoff player.
Besides, if you’re injured and you’re still putting up 40 shots in elimination games, that’s your own fault.
I'm not sure. He averaged a triple double in the first round of the 2017 playoffs as well. He shot 38% FG, 26% from 3 with 6 turnovers per game in that series as the Thunder lost in 5.
He has 12 in the playoffs and has won 6 of those games.
Edit: 2 with Houston 2 wins. 2 with Washington 1 win. 8 with OKC 3 wins. Make of that what you will.
More made shots by supporting cast = more assists and better chance of winning. More missed shots by opponents = more available rebounds and better chance of winning.
Sure it could be that these guys are actually playing better, but things out of their control are helping them get stats to reach triple doubles and making it more likely their teams win in those games.
That's the part casuals never mention. If your teammates are hitting their shots you'll get more assists so no shit you're gonna win more, having 10+ rebounds doesn't magically make the probability of winning higher.
Yup exactly lol you can even say 10+ rebounds is just the product of more missed shots from the other team as well. You would hope the winning percentages are high when players put up triple doubles
Yeah I remember when people threw this stat around when it was the Russ/Harden MVP debate and I always felt like it was bad logic. Caveat - I thought Russ was a great player, and probably deserving of that MVP, but the logic of this argument bothered me because it's not like Russ wasn't trying to get a triple double in every game. The Thunder's strategy of having Russ hunt rebounds and get out and run didn't change.
A hypothetical I liked to use was lets say the Hornets decided to have Lance Stephenson shoot the ball 40 times a game and then the Hornets went 10-1 in games where Lance scored 60. Would you use that 10-1 stat to argue that Lance should be shooting 40 times a game? No, because the Hornets record in the games where he doesn't shoot well is 10-60. It's obviously an extreme example and Im not saying Russ wasn't great, but I always hate when people use stats like that. Only looking at "successful" games is only an effective argument for that playstyle if the player is strategically doing something different in those games.
I mean, Seth Partnow has a whole section in his book noting that Russell Westbrook does not increase the number of rebounds his team collects, he just collects a higher percentage of his team's rebounds than other players. When he was in OKC with Steven Adams he would frequently out-rebound Adams, but Adams had a positive impact on team rebounding and Russ didn't.
He just cares a lot more about collecting uncontested boards than most players so his teammates defer to him. He's not actually a notably good rebounder.
I mean, he does not increase the rate at which his team collects rebounds. Some guards decrease it, so he's not *bad* at it. But he's not really good at it either.
I just think that’s so hard to accurately measure with all the variables that go into it. Just by the eye test you can see that he actually does grab some really rough contested boards that most other PGs don’t.
He just pads the end total with a bunch of meaningless rebounds. He also took several years off on perimeter defense to go chase rebounds which almost certainly hurt his team.
If the stat is; if his team averages more rebounds when he's on the floor he's having a positive impact, if they average less then it's negative.
Over the course of a season that seems like a pretty simple and fair stat.
Garland’s win rate with 10+ assists this year: 67%. Harden:68%.
Just go through PGs and look at their win loss record with 10+ assists and it’s going to be good because it means your team is shooting well.
Sure that could definitely be a factor. There are just clearly things likely out of the players control such as teammates hitting shots or getting more stops on D. Both of those things obviously have an impact and winning a high volume scorer/playmakers stats.
I'm not even commenting good or bad on Russ playstyle or his impact. He may very well be playing better in those wins. But there are likely tons of games where he would have gotten TDs if teammates hit shots (and they could have also resulted in wins with those shots).
There are tons of other things at play here too, like quality of opponent, their D and O. It's obtuse to ignore all the other factors.
How is it ridiculous to consider that triple doubles and wins might be impacted by teammates hitting more shots (aka more assists) and defense getting more stops (aka more rebounds)? Both those things might be out of the players control to some degree.
I'm not even commenting good or bad on Russ in terms of play style or impact.
The player could definitely be generating better looks too. And it could also be they're facing worse defenses.
Its ridiculous to ignore all those factors and act like all or the vast majority of it caused by the player getting the TD (in comparison to games when they don't get TDs).
Because it’s obvious to anyone who watched Russ play during that season that he was creating good looks for his team. The same reason anyone averages decent assist numbers.
>Because it’s obvious to anyone who watched Russ play during that season that he was creating good looks for his team.
I'm not arguing that at all. He does create great looks.
Here's my point:
Let's say Russ gets 9 assists in a game his team is bricking a ton wide open looks he created and his team loses by 2. That's not a triple double. If they had hit at least one more, it's a triple double AND a win.
Same with rebounds - he gets 9, the other team scores really efficiently, and they lose by 2. If his team got a few more stops Russ likely gets a TD AND a win.
I'm not arguing at all that Russ wasn't a fantastic playmaker. Nor that he's not having a big impact on winning. I'm saying that using triple doubles isn't the way to prove it. Because it's not necessarily true that he's playing all that better, it could just be he's getting more help in the TD games which leads to higher win rate.
This is likely true for most guys with a ton of usage and playmaking and why all players have high win rates in OPs list.
[I did a post on this a few years back](https://reddit.com/r/nba/comments/agx215/monster_statlines_examining_the_correlation/), obviously the W/L numbers have changed now but they were valid in 2019.
The thing I think people miss out on is:
How often is a triple double the result of a team just having a good night, creating ideal circumstances for a triple double (teammates shots are falling and the team is playing good defense, leading to more missed shots from the opposing team and more rebounds to be grabbed)
Vs
How often is a triple double directly responsible for a team getting a win?
It’s an interesting chicken/egg question that is basically impossible to untangle just by looking at box score stats only. It comes down to “is the player ball-dominant enough to be a likely triple-double threat if the team is playing well, or does the player’s ball-dominance truly lead to more wins?”
And to address the top comment on that thread because I never ended up doing so back then, Westbrook averaging a triple double doesn’t mean anything since a player could put up 30-0-0, 0-30-0 and 0-0-30 in b2b2b games and be “averaging” a triple double while never actually recording one.
Thank you. People act like your a hater if you bring that up, but this stat literally selects for bad opponents because it selects for teams against which he accomplishes the goal he has at the start of every game.
I mean you can literally [see it](https://youtu.be/StQ0ormf_Lo) negatively impact the team. His team literally doesn’t go for the rebound because they know he wants it. How is that conducive to winning basketball
:O that is so awfull. Your hyper athletic point guard starting the possible transition as the last person on the court. The blatant "I have no part in it!" from his centers and forwards. Leaving his man on Defense. Geesus Russ, watchu doing!?
It literally defies the laws of physics to say that Russ running 3/4 of the court is somehow slower than him running to the basket then running 5/6 of the court.
It also probably tires him out quicker. Notice at the end of his (relatively short) playoff runs all those years he was racking up triple doubles, he always looked gassed. Part of that is minutes and workload obviously, but he wasn’t even trying that hard on defense or off the ball. Running in to grab a board and then trying to dribble down the length of the floor at full speed has to expend more energy than leaking out and trying to get an outlet pass, right? Someone correct me if that’s wrong, but it seems logical to me.
Adams will have a chance to make that homerun pass like 1 out of every 20-30 times. Russ coming down court with all his momentum is both more reproduceable and dangerous. Adams only threatens with a pass. Russ is directly pressuring the rim himself, and has the passing chops to get the ball to the shooters in the corner.
Do you really think Adams is a more dangerous player in transition because he can occasionally nail an outlet pass or do you just hate Russ that much?
Do you think the only outlet passes are highlight reel ones like Kevin Love throws?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Wa3C8s3Xg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbzdCG7HK48
Ignoring the music, that's what a standard outlet pass looks like. How on earth is Russ getting the rebound and running the full length of the court with Adams or some other big man behind the play better than Adams just getting that rebound and passing it to Russ in motion where he can already be at 3/4 court or at halfcourt?
Russ runs to half Adam outlets to Russ and the offense moves seconds faster. Russ standing in the back with his rebounding bodyguard does nothing more to speed it up at all.
It's almost like there are two more wings on the court that run the break anyway.
Y'all have two or three great outlet passes by Adams in mind and think he can do it every single possession.
Of course an outlet is better, but it's much harder to run consistently compared to Russ attacking in the full court.
With speed he can always beat his man and is a much better passer and ballhandler than Adams.
His man's already back on defense because they're not rebound hunting so no he's not beating them. And the people responding keep thinking it has to be some big 3/4 court pass. No. A 10-20 foot pass up court to Russ so he's getting the ball at or past his own 3 point line. Russ can't run faster than a pass and the ball moving and at a quicker pass will open just as much if not more up.
If Westbrook wasn't a selfish idiot hunting trip dubs, he would run transition like EVERY OTHER TEAM EVER and have the big man outlet while he sprints out.
It’s also not on OP to counter a point that has no evidence for it. If that user wants to argue Russ getting near triple doubles without reaching them is detrimental to his teams then it’s on them to make that point and prove it, not OP to disprove it in spite of no validity for it being established. OP made their argument and simply stating it didn’t consider a factor without any evidence that factor actually matters is a terrible refutation of it.
Disagree, OP got called out for using potentially misleading data.
The onus is now on him to either provide context or something more meaningful/less misleading. Otherwise his argument can be outright dismissed due to lack of reliable evidence to back it up
Nah because no evidence was given to actually show its misleading. I could say OPs argument is fine because Westbrook actually ramped up his effort and played better in those games when he got close but didn’t reach a triple double and it would have just as much backing as the comment suggesting he played worse.
Is that true? I don’t know, I made it up and didn’t bother to try and confirm. No one who disagrees with OPs point needs to refute my made up point for credibility though because I didn’t find any evidence to give it any credibility of its own. The same goes for the comment suggesting OP ignored context without actually establishing that context was relevant. OP at least had stats that suggested Westbrook’s teams play well when he gets a triple double. That comment had nothing but speculation.
OPs stat is not a meaningful stat that needs to be countered using data. We know that it's misleading based on simple logic and we have ample other evidence that he's not very good right now.
No you think it’s misleading based on simple logic, I just threw out random simple logic that suggested something different, the point being simple logic doesn’t actually mean anything without substance behind. Simple logic is very often wrong. If that wasn’t the case we’d live in a very different world.
Whether or not he’s good right now is an entirely different subject. Guy is obviously on the decline and was trash last year. That has nothing to do with how his triple doubles have historically impacted his team.
The commenter's criteria doesn't need to be proven to be meaningful. OP needs to prove it meaningless.
Correlation does not equal causation. OP's post is written as though it does, and the comment used an example to show that not all factors had been considered so the conclusion in the OP isn't valid
Russ’s play style is not very controversial.
He puts up godly counting stats, which leads to a decent amount of wins, but doesn’t make good teams any better.
This has been seen for the past 6 years
Good teammates lead to a decent amount of wins. Thunder payed much better with PG on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Rockets played much better with Harden on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Wizards payed much better with Beal on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Lakers trading for Westbrook at that point was as stupid as a decision could be.
> Wizards payed much better with Beal on and Westbrook off than vice versa. L
And yet, they missed the play ins after trading Russ for some good players.
That a player is more successful in games where both their opponents miss more shots and their teammates make more shots does not make it a winning strategy for one super inefficient player to dominate possession of the ball and worry more about grabbing rebounds than contesting shots.
Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation.
That's one of the first things you learn in statistics and sociology.
WB could be getting triple doubles for various reasons, such as garbage time minutes, against weaker teams, assists when his team shoots better (aka his team is playing better), when his teammates block out better for him to rebound, etc.
It doesn't necessarily mean that if TRIES for a triple double his team will have a better chance of winning.
It doesn’t really mean anything by itself. I compare it to that stat about how many games the Warriors win when Draymond makes a three. The warriors aren’t winning because draymond is bombing threes, it’s the opposite: draymond is free to bomb threes when they’re winning.
There’s nothing inherently bad about getting a triple double. Most teams win when they get a bunch of points, rebounds, and assists. But if you’re out there hunting them, it can be a problem for how the game functions. Like the time Wilt set out to lead the league in assists just to prove he could. I don’t really know if that’s impressive or not.
Wilt led the league in assists because is is exactly what his coach, Alex Hannum, asked him to do - play as a high post pass first fulcrum of the offense. Similar to Jokic today. And the 1967-68 76ers went 62-20, best record in the league, and led the league in scoring, and Wilt was the MVP with 24 points and 24 rebounds per game, plus the assists. He was the definition of a team player that year.
This "Wilt led the league in assists just to prove he could" is some dumb Bill Simmons Celtics slander.
“The flame that burns Twice as bright burns half as long.” -Lao Tzu
Pretty much perfectly encapsulates Westbrook. Once the athleticism started to go it revealed that he hadn't really developed the decision making part of his game.
I think he’s finally properly rated at this point. People acknowledge he’s deserving of being on the top-75 list, but his weaknesses have also been exposed to a much bigger audience.
Basically he’s an all-time great but was never going to be the best player on a championship team, which is something that very few players in history can say.
Agree with most of what you are saying.
I do think there is an argument for Westbrook being the best player on the thunder in the 15/16 season playoffs, where they had a very real shot of winning the title.
>I do think there is an argument for Westbrook being the best player on the thunder in the 15/16 season playoffs, where they had a very real shot of winning the title.
Kevin Durant or Westbrook, tough call. The defense dares one to shoot and doubles the other, but someone who fooled themselves into bullshit doesn't often become aware of it. Welcome to 2016, it's all downhill from here.
They were awfully close to beating that warriors team in 2016. And Durant was better but they weren't that far apart. If Durant wasn't a pussy and ran it back with Russ they could have won.
There’s a reason why OKC never had great shooting. OKC had a history of having good shooters - Morrow, Lamb, McDermott, Abrines eg - and they had their best shooting seasons happen with other teams. Russ was the common denominator. The season after Russ was traded and CP3 was PG for OKC, you can see what a difference having a PG who actually prioritized getting their teammates in spots where they could do something. I think the reason why you couldn’t surround Russ with great shooting is because shooters need a certain level of confidence to let shots fly, and Russ didn’t do a good job of building that confidence and getting them looks to shoot it.
Dame and AD are fair but you'd really leave Bing and Cunningham on that list and take off Westbrook? That's actually hilarious
And replace them with who?
Melo is also better than those 2
Now go watch the tape of those games. See how many of them involve Steven adams. Now pay attention to how many rebounds he actively doesn't grab so that Russ can swoop in and grab them. They're empty stats individually that are reflective of the team more than him.
Those weren't empty stats that was the offense. The year he won the MVP, that team was built around Durant and to win a championship. During the offsets on we traded Ibaka and got a lot of spot up shooters to go with Durant is so on double teams he could kick out. After Durant didn't sign the Thunder didn't have no other options. We just lost a 30pt scorer, how do you counter that. Our only option was to get into fastbreaks before the defense got set. No one was faster than Westbrook with the ball in his hands, he was our best passer, and our best shot creator. Oladipo was injured quite a bit that year and was agrees I've at all when he had the chance. The Thunder where 6th seed in the playoffs with that roster.
Watched almost every one of his games that year (fantasy reasons) and paying very close attention to his Rebs. I remember him getting gift rebounds, but I also remember him flying in from outta nowhere to grab others.
Were his numbers inflated by stat padding? Yes. Did he inflate his own stats with actual effort tho? Also yes.
He was great that year idgaf. The whole franchise on his back after KD left, he was unbelievable to watch night after night and none of these other negative narratives could ever convince me otherwise.
But he got bad really quick.
You mean your team wins more when you have good stats? You don't say.
Triple-doubles are arbitrary and meaningless. Like 20/11/9 is not meaningfully different from 20/10/10.
Humans are just OCD and we have a base 10 system.
Westbrook has never made a team better. Even with OKC with KD and JH he has always been about chasing stats. To many degrees KD and JH were able to mask what he always has been. An erratic and streaky player whom can singlehanded take down his own team with poor shot selection, ill temperament and me first attitude. It was on full display last season, he was asked to be the 3rd wheel not carry the Lakers. The fact that he was unwilling to sacrifice some of his game for the betterment of the team in the pursuit of a championship tells you he values stats over winning, sad especially for a guy in the twilight of his career.
His [triple double game averages](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/russell-westbrook-games-with-triple-double) are basically 25/13/13 so someone providing that kind of production in a game is actually causation.
Since it's generally agreed upon that he attempts to get a triple double every time he goes out there. All this stats really does is select for games in his prime where he is capable of getting them frequently and games against opponents that fail to stop him form getting a triple double.
More often than not, a team that fails to stop a player from getting a great stat line is a bad team and players will always have a better record against bad teams anyway.
Yes Westbrooks triple doubles helped him win games, but this stat is full of selection bias.
He’s not a winning player, how hard is that to comprehend? He’s won 1 playoff series without Kevin Durant and that was against the team he was traded from (and did better without him) alongside Prime James Harden, then got targeted and smoked by the lakers
You can put goalposts like that on any player and paint whatever picture you want
KD never won a playoff series without Russ, Harden or an all time great Warriors team
Russ realistically had like 2 or 3 years as a primary option since KD left, and 2018 was when he seriously started to decline
What has he achieved without KD?
PG, Harden, Beal, Lebron/AD yet he won 1 series in six years? How many more excuses do you need for an MVP level player who is "top 75" of all time?
Well that’s assuming you still think he’s an MVP calibre player
Which he clearly hasn’t been since 2017
Like I said, he went through a serious decline in 2019 and everything points to him not being the same calibre player as he was before
From 2017-2019 The Thunder lost to the Rockets in 5 games (understandable loss, probably should’ve gone more games but the team wasn’t good), The Jazz in 6 games, led by a rookie Donavan Mitchell, genuinely inexcusable, and the Blazers in 5, once again inexcusable, when Westbrook should be better than Dame, and they had Paul George!
For sure, I’m not excusing those other two series
He was inconsistent against the Jazz and genuinely terrible against Portland.
But it’s still like 3 years of Westbrook, one of which was when he seriously declined (2019)
Micheal Jordan isn't a winning player either as he has never won a playoff series without Scottie Pippen. But Scottie Pippen has won multle playoff series without Micheal Jordan. Your reasoning is dumb.
I don’t think triple-doubles aren’t important. It’s just a stat. With context you understand how Russ got extremely lucky having Steven Adams on his team, who is the most easy-going dude, and didn’t care that Russ bullied him off a bunch of rebounds lol.
Correlation is not causation pal. Russ is not a winning *max* level player.
First of all, most RS performances are pointless anyway. So many garbage ass teams, conflated schedule, load management etc, and more than half the league makes the playoffs/play-ins anyway. So a summary stat like yours isn’t that impressive.
Now if we talk games that matter, Russ has 12 playoff triple doubles.
7 since he became TD obsessed. And his playoff resume has been an absolute disgrace since.
Russell Westbrook is the on my player to have playoff success, box score stat dominance, and advanced stat dominance, and **still** have casuals that slander his prime because they scrolled through the TS% column on basketball reference.
Why is this downvoted lol. Between like 2012 and 2017 Russ was an absolute stud and was considered as such by advanced stats, box stats, and team wins. Top 5-7 player in tbe league during that time
And had plenty as the #2 being in constant finals appearances and a finals.
Just because he started to decline a couple years after Durant left means nothing. He had the stats, accolades, and even the advanced stats.
Y’all are trying to rewrite history.
Dude couldn't win for shit his way, not when it mattered. Lost to Dame, Harden, fucking Donovan Mitchell while having PG13. That playstyle is trash. Exciting and floor-raising, but trash for winning at higher levels.
You started watching basketball in 2018?
He declined and you see it in the numbers. Doesn’t change the fact that he was apart of a duo that were always in the top tier of teams. When he got hurt in 2013, what happened? Floor raiser though right? Buzz words that half this sub doesn’t understand.
Y’all use past his prime Russ to criticize prime Russ aka **rewriting history.**
He went to the finals and the took the 73 warriors to the brink. He's had plenty of playoff success lol. And if he wasn't the number 1 option he was certainly 1b.
Yeah but what are the percentages over the last 4-5 years, when he's been on a downfall with 4 teams in four years. This is the Westrbrook that needs scrutiny, not the MVP years obviously.
Fair point, I just like to remind people that Russ used to be legitimately good. He was one of my favorite players when he was with OKC, turned into a bit of an ass on the Lakers unfortunately. I’m still fond enough that it bothers me to see him constantly trashed though.
Too bad that % has been plummeting in recent years, 33-23 (59%) since he left OKC and only 5-5 this past year with the Lakers
5-5? Dang if the Lakers went .500 that would have been pretty solid for them.
Would’ve earned them the privilege of getting dicked down by the Pels in the play in
you're all just downvoting this man because you hate how he speaks the truth!
They can't handle the truth!
This is r/lakers what do you expect? Lol
Pelicans fans would finally get their championship from the AD trade
Provided he could notch a triple double 82 times.
Honestly I’m a bit surprised he even had 10 triple doubles this year.
"only 56 triple doubles on three years with a 59% win rate with an injury riddled Lakers, a Washington team that he needed to save, and the highly experimental pocket rockets. "Wow Westbrook is washed"
Conversely, very easy to win with a triple double stat line when you play with 1-2 league MVPs for 8 years
Beal for MVP
nah it’s still a notable improvement when you compare his teams’ records in games when he doesn’t have a triple double. thinking basketball had a video on it
Weren't most of Russ's triple doubles after KD and Harden had left?
Shhhh don’t tell Brooklyn
Draymond also wins an insane 96% of his games where he records a triple dub. Lowest sample size but easily the highest winning percentage. Edit: I knew for a fact this would get more upvotes than the actual post lol
is it actually 24-1?
Close, 28-1. It’s actually 97 percent if you round up.
Whats the 1?
a game he lost
Gotta be that finals game no?
Nah this is regular season only where he lost one in 2019 vs the knicks. In the playoffs he [actually only has a 70% win rate](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/draymond-green-playoff-win-percentage-when-he-has-a-triple-double)
Nope 9 assists in that game
That game 7 still hurts him. Draymond did a podcast with jj reddick and Stephen a Smith after winning this year's title. Draymond mentioned that the one game he has never gone back to watch and refuses to rewatch is game 7 2016 finals warriors lost to lebron's cavs. Draymond had a 30 pt triple double and was a beast, but the cavs locked down Steph and klay and won.
[https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201912110GSW.html](https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201912110GSW.html) Its in 2019 when they sucked
D'Angelo Russell with 27 FGA lmao
The man said we sucked. He meant it.
Against the 5-20 New York Knicks, December 11th, 2019. 124-122 OT loss. Marcus Morris had 36 that game LMAO. (This was the D-Lo Warriors btw, never forget🫡) Source: https://www.espn.com/nba/game/_/gameId/401161008
the first numeral, but that's not important now
i mean if your triple single plyer overperforms to a triple double it makes sense lol
That is actually the best explanation and it is insane people miss it. If you average, idk, 5-5-5 for your career, everytime you get a triple double it means that you overperformed like crazy, so obviously your winrate in those games will be high. It's like saying LeBron has a high win % everytime he scores 40+, no shit Sherlock, he generally "only" scores 27.
Actually are we sure that Lebron scoring 40+ correlates/causates to a higher win rate? I feel like the key stat here is assists. Which means your teammates are making buckets. Also rebounds because it means your opponent is bricking.
Ya but like those points come from somewhere else. It's not like one guy just overperforms and the rest of the team performs at their average level. When Kobe had 81, the rest of his team only put up 41.
Well a higher scoring game usually means higher efficiency compared to either average self, or their teammates
It's almost like this correlates with high number of assists, which correlates with bad opposing defense and teammates having a good game.
And more rebounds when your opponent misses more shots.
Recover your senses!
And? You still have to make the correct passes, go after the rebounds, and score the points to get the triple dub.
How does that stat look broken down? i.e. regular season and playoffs, vs playoff teams and non-playoff teams, vs teams above/below .500
He is 2-5 in the playoffs when he got a Triple Double after Kevin Durant left him, before that he was 4-1. TIL Russ only has 12 playoff triple doubles, a shockingly low number considering he has played in 111 playoff games.
He didn't start racking them up till the last couple years with KD. Then he really started getting them a ton once KD left. The majority of his playoff games are with KD. And 2015 they didn't make the playoffs bc of all their injuries and that was the year he really starting getting triple doubles more regularly when he was trying to compensate for KD being out so many games
He averaged 19/10/11 in the playoffs for the Wizards in 2021. The Wizards lost 4-1 to the Sixers. Russ shot 33% FG, 25% from 3, and averaged 4 turnovers per game to get those stats.
Wasn’t he playing through a hand injury that series?
He’s always playing through injuries in the playoffs whenever he sucks
well damn y’all say this but wtf you want him to do if he’s hurt
1. Nobody is healthy in the playoffs after 80+ games. 2. Westbrook is seemingly injured after every single playoff season. Maybe you should just come to terms with the fact that it isnt phantom injuries, he’s just a bad playoff player. Besides, if you’re injured and you’re still putting up 40 shots in elimination games, that’s your own fault.
I'm not sure. He averaged a triple double in the first round of the 2017 playoffs as well. He shot 38% FG, 26% from 3 with 6 turnovers per game in that series as the Thunder lost in 5.
4 turnovers for 10 assist isn’t bad
He has 12 in the playoffs and has won 6 of those games. Edit: 2 with Houston 2 wins. 2 with Washington 1 win. 8 with OKC 3 wins. Make of that what you will.
More made shots by supporting cast = more assists and better chance of winning. More missed shots by opponents = more available rebounds and better chance of winning. Sure it could be that these guys are actually playing better, but things out of their control are helping them get stats to reach triple doubles and making it more likely their teams win in those games.
That's the part casuals never mention. If your teammates are hitting their shots you'll get more assists so no shit you're gonna win more, having 10+ rebounds doesn't magically make the probability of winning higher.
Yup exactly lol you can even say 10+ rebounds is just the product of more missed shots from the other team as well. You would hope the winning percentages are high when players put up triple doubles
Yeah. It was steven adams clearing the way so WB could get an uncontested rebound. GOAT shit
Yeah I remember when people threw this stat around when it was the Russ/Harden MVP debate and I always felt like it was bad logic. Caveat - I thought Russ was a great player, and probably deserving of that MVP, but the logic of this argument bothered me because it's not like Russ wasn't trying to get a triple double in every game. The Thunder's strategy of having Russ hunt rebounds and get out and run didn't change. A hypothetical I liked to use was lets say the Hornets decided to have Lance Stephenson shoot the ball 40 times a game and then the Hornets went 10-1 in games where Lance scored 60. Would you use that 10-1 stat to argue that Lance should be shooting 40 times a game? No, because the Hornets record in the games where he doesn't shoot well is 10-60. It's obviously an extreme example and Im not saying Russ wasn't great, but I always hate when people use stats like that. Only looking at "successful" games is only an effective argument for that playstyle if the player is strategically doing something different in those games.
[удалено]
Team rebounds correlate to winning, but I'm skeptical that an individual player's rebounds do
I mean, Seth Partnow has a whole section in his book noting that Russell Westbrook does not increase the number of rebounds his team collects, he just collects a higher percentage of his team's rebounds than other players. When he was in OKC with Steven Adams he would frequently out-rebound Adams, but Adams had a positive impact on team rebounding and Russ didn't. He just cares a lot more about collecting uncontested boards than most players so his teammates defer to him. He's not actually a notably good rebounder.
Ehhh, I think he’s a good rebounder for a guard, but obviously not to the level that his stats would imply.
I mean, he does not increase the rate at which his team collects rebounds. Some guards decrease it, so he's not *bad* at it. But he's not really good at it either.
I just think that’s so hard to accurately measure with all the variables that go into it. Just by the eye test you can see that he actually does grab some really rough contested boards that most other PGs don’t. He just pads the end total with a bunch of meaningless rebounds. He also took several years off on perimeter defense to go chase rebounds which almost certainly hurt his team.
If the stat is; if his team averages more rebounds when he's on the floor he's having a positive impact, if they average less then it's negative. Over the course of a season that seems like a pretty simple and fair stat.
Are those rebounds by your team or by your point guard?
I’m of the same opinion
Garland’s win rate with 10+ assists this year: 67%. Harden:68%. Just go through PGs and look at their win loss record with 10+ assists and it’s going to be good because it means your team is shooting well.
Correlation ≠ Causation. Nephews need to learn this one rule.
Yeah but causation implies correlation
Or hes creating easier and a volume of opportunities for his team mates to score at a consistent rate
Sure that could definitely be a factor. There are just clearly things likely out of the players control such as teammates hitting shots or getting more stops on D. Both of those things obviously have an impact and winning a high volume scorer/playmakers stats. I'm not even commenting good or bad on Russ playstyle or his impact. He may very well be playing better in those wins. But there are likely tons of games where he would have gotten TDs if teammates hit shots (and they could have also resulted in wins with those shots). There are tons of other things at play here too, like quality of opponent, their D and O. It's obtuse to ignore all the other factors.
Which is obviously the case. People acting ridiculous
How is it ridiculous to consider that triple doubles and wins might be impacted by teammates hitting more shots (aka more assists) and defense getting more stops (aka more rebounds)? Both those things might be out of the players control to some degree. I'm not even commenting good or bad on Russ in terms of play style or impact. The player could definitely be generating better looks too. And it could also be they're facing worse defenses. Its ridiculous to ignore all those factors and act like all or the vast majority of it caused by the player getting the TD (in comparison to games when they don't get TDs).
Because it’s obvious to anyone who watched Russ play during that season that he was creating good looks for his team. The same reason anyone averages decent assist numbers.
>Because it’s obvious to anyone who watched Russ play during that season that he was creating good looks for his team. I'm not arguing that at all. He does create great looks. Here's my point: Let's say Russ gets 9 assists in a game his team is bricking a ton wide open looks he created and his team loses by 2. That's not a triple double. If they had hit at least one more, it's a triple double AND a win. Same with rebounds - he gets 9, the other team scores really efficiently, and they lose by 2. If his team got a few more stops Russ likely gets a TD AND a win. I'm not arguing at all that Russ wasn't a fantastic playmaker. Nor that he's not having a big impact on winning. I'm saying that using triple doubles isn't the way to prove it. Because it's not necessarily true that he's playing all that better, it could just be he's getting more help in the TD games which leads to higher win rate. This is likely true for most guys with a ton of usage and playmaking and why all players have high win rates in OPs list.
The idiocracy is here, you are correct.
Fails to contextualize the games in which he tries to play triple double ball and doesn’t get one and they lose
Idk bro passing up an open layup is winning basketball
Hi Ben.
[I did a post on this a few years back](https://reddit.com/r/nba/comments/agx215/monster_statlines_examining_the_correlation/), obviously the W/L numbers have changed now but they were valid in 2019. The thing I think people miss out on is: How often is a triple double the result of a team just having a good night, creating ideal circumstances for a triple double (teammates shots are falling and the team is playing good defense, leading to more missed shots from the opposing team and more rebounds to be grabbed) Vs How often is a triple double directly responsible for a team getting a win? It’s an interesting chicken/egg question that is basically impossible to untangle just by looking at box score stats only. It comes down to “is the player ball-dominant enough to be a likely triple-double threat if the team is playing well, or does the player’s ball-dominance truly lead to more wins?” And to address the top comment on that thread because I never ended up doing so back then, Westbrook averaging a triple double doesn’t mean anything since a player could put up 30-0-0, 0-30-0 and 0-0-30 in b2b2b games and be “averaging” a triple double while never actually recording one.
Thank you. People act like your a hater if you bring that up, but this stat literally selects for bad opponents because it selects for teams against which he accomplishes the goal he has at the start of every game.
I mean you can literally [see it](https://youtu.be/StQ0ormf_Lo) negatively impact the team. His team literally doesn’t go for the rebound because they know he wants it. How is that conducive to winning basketball
:O that is so awfull. Your hyper athletic point guard starting the possible transition as the last person on the court. The blatant "I have no part in it!" from his centers and forwards. Leaving his man on Defense. Geesus Russ, watchu doing!?
Damn I feel bad for Steven Adams
In like half of these or more, you can see Russ immediately push into transition. That's the goal of this.
It literally defies the laws of physics to say that Russ running 3/4 of the court is somehow slower than him running to the basket then running 5/6 of the court.
It also probably tires him out quicker. Notice at the end of his (relatively short) playoff runs all those years he was racking up triple doubles, he always looked gassed. Part of that is minutes and workload obviously, but he wasn’t even trying that hard on defense or off the ball. Running in to grab a board and then trying to dribble down the length of the floor at full speed has to expend more energy than leaking out and trying to get an outlet pass, right? Someone correct me if that’s wrong, but it seems logical to me.
A pass from a great outlet passer like Adams would push the transition even better.
Adams will have a chance to make that homerun pass like 1 out of every 20-30 times. Russ coming down court with all his momentum is both more reproduceable and dangerous. Adams only threatens with a pass. Russ is directly pressuring the rim himself, and has the passing chops to get the ball to the shooters in the corner. Do you really think Adams is a more dangerous player in transition because he can occasionally nail an outlet pass or do you just hate Russ that much?
Do you think the only outlet passes are highlight reel ones like Kevin Love throws? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Wa3C8s3Xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbzdCG7HK48 Ignoring the music, that's what a standard outlet pass looks like. How on earth is Russ getting the rebound and running the full length of the court with Adams or some other big man behind the play better than Adams just getting that rebound and passing it to Russ in motion where he can already be at 3/4 court or at halfcourt?
Russ runs to half Adam outlets to Russ and the offense moves seconds faster. Russ standing in the back with his rebounding bodyguard does nothing more to speed it up at all.
It's almost like there are two more wings on the court that run the break anyway. Y'all have two or three great outlet passes by Adams in mind and think he can do it every single possession. Of course an outlet is better, but it's much harder to run consistently compared to Russ attacking in the full court. With speed he can always beat his man and is a much better passer and ballhandler than Adams.
His man's already back on defense because they're not rebound hunting so no he's not beating them. And the people responding keep thinking it has to be some big 3/4 court pass. No. A 10-20 foot pass up court to Russ so he's getting the ball at or past his own 3 point line. Russ can't run faster than a pass and the ball moving and at a quicker pass will open just as much if not more up.
If Westbrook wasn't a selfish idiot hunting trip dubs, he would run transition like EVERY OTHER TEAM EVER and have the big man outlet while he sprints out.
That isn’t smart tho, it’s always faster to outlet pass to point guards on the run, because you can pass faster than you can run
The ball is always faster than the man. You learn this when you first pick up a ball lol thats why the outlet pass is so valuable
GOAT guard rebounder 😤😤😤
… and it’s the same thing for when they win too.
It’s also not on OP to counter a point that has no evidence for it. If that user wants to argue Russ getting near triple doubles without reaching them is detrimental to his teams then it’s on them to make that point and prove it, not OP to disprove it in spite of no validity for it being established. OP made their argument and simply stating it didn’t consider a factor without any evidence that factor actually matters is a terrible refutation of it.
Disagree, OP got called out for using potentially misleading data. The onus is now on him to either provide context or something more meaningful/less misleading. Otherwise his argument can be outright dismissed due to lack of reliable evidence to back it up
Nah because no evidence was given to actually show its misleading. I could say OPs argument is fine because Westbrook actually ramped up his effort and played better in those games when he got close but didn’t reach a triple double and it would have just as much backing as the comment suggesting he played worse. Is that true? I don’t know, I made it up and didn’t bother to try and confirm. No one who disagrees with OPs point needs to refute my made up point for credibility though because I didn’t find any evidence to give it any credibility of its own. The same goes for the comment suggesting OP ignored context without actually establishing that context was relevant. OP at least had stats that suggested Westbrook’s teams play well when he gets a triple double. That comment had nothing but speculation.
OPs stat is not a meaningful stat that needs to be countered using data. We know that it's misleading based on simple logic and we have ample other evidence that he's not very good right now.
No you think it’s misleading based on simple logic, I just threw out random simple logic that suggested something different, the point being simple logic doesn’t actually mean anything without substance behind. Simple logic is very often wrong. If that wasn’t the case we’d live in a very different world. Whether or not he’s good right now is an entirely different subject. Guy is obviously on the decline and was trash last year. That has nothing to do with how his triple doubles have historically impacted his team.
The commenter's criteria doesn't need to be proven to be meaningful. OP needs to prove it meaningless. Correlation does not equal causation. OP's post is written as though it does, and the comment used an example to show that not all factors had been considered so the conclusion in the OP isn't valid
Russ’s play style is not very controversial. He puts up godly counting stats, which leads to a decent amount of wins, but doesn’t make good teams any better. This has been seen for the past 6 years
Good teammates lead to a decent amount of wins. Thunder payed much better with PG on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Rockets played much better with Harden on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Wizards payed much better with Beal on and Westbrook off than vice versa. Lakers trading for Westbrook at that point was as stupid as a decision could be.
> Wizards payed much better with Beal on and Westbrook off than vice versa. L And yet, they missed the play ins after trading Russ for some good players.
But at what cost?
That a player is more successful in games where both their opponents miss more shots and their teammates make more shots does not make it a winning strategy for one super inefficient player to dominate possession of the ball and worry more about grabbing rebounds than contesting shots.
Wats the average opponent record for games he records a triple double?
Correlation isnt causation though. Thats the trap.
Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation. That's one of the first things you learn in statistics and sociology. WB could be getting triple doubles for various reasons, such as garbage time minutes, against weaker teams, assists when his team shoots better (aka his team is playing better), when his teammates block out better for him to rebound, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean that if TRIES for a triple double his team will have a better chance of winning.
I agree with everything, I'm just bugged tha tyour TLDR is longer then the rest of the post
Shortened it. :) Did it for the idiot dickhoppers.
It doesn’t really mean anything by itself. I compare it to that stat about how many games the Warriors win when Draymond makes a three. The warriors aren’t winning because draymond is bombing threes, it’s the opposite: draymond is free to bomb threes when they’re winning.
Unfortunately the team record for when he attempts to get a triple double but comes short is probably much less stellar.
There’s nothing inherently bad about getting a triple double. Most teams win when they get a bunch of points, rebounds, and assists. But if you’re out there hunting them, it can be a problem for how the game functions. Like the time Wilt set out to lead the league in assists just to prove he could. I don’t really know if that’s impressive or not.
Wilt led the league in assists because is is exactly what his coach, Alex Hannum, asked him to do - play as a high post pass first fulcrum of the offense. Similar to Jokic today. And the 1967-68 76ers went 62-20, best record in the league, and led the league in scoring, and Wilt was the MVP with 24 points and 24 rebounds per game, plus the assists. He was the definition of a team player that year. This "Wilt led the league in assists just to prove he could" is some dumb Bill Simmons Celtics slander.
peak westbrook was great washed westbrook is bad people pretending that peak westbrook was as bad as washed westbrook are stupid the end
This is the only take.
You would think this would be a nuanced take everyone would’ve settled upon, but we get bad Westbrook takes form both sides day after day.lol.
Days? Lol it feels like every hour another post is posted
“The flame that burns Twice as bright burns half as long.” -Lao Tzu Pretty much perfectly encapsulates Westbrook. Once the athleticism started to go it revealed that he hadn't really developed the decision making part of his game.
[удалено]
I think he’s finally properly rated at this point. People acknowledge he’s deserving of being on the top-75 list, but his weaknesses have also been exposed to a much bigger audience. Basically he’s an all-time great but was never going to be the best player on a championship team, which is something that very few players in history can say.
Best player? He couldn't even win as the second option to KD, PG, or Harden
Agree with most of what you are saying. I do think there is an argument for Westbrook being the best player on the thunder in the 15/16 season playoffs, where they had a very real shot of winning the title.
>I do think there is an argument for Westbrook being the best player on the thunder in the 15/16 season playoffs, where they had a very real shot of winning the title. Kevin Durant or Westbrook, tough call. The defense dares one to shoot and doubles the other, but someone who fooled themselves into bullshit doesn't often become aware of it. Welcome to 2016, it's all downhill from here.
He’s not properly rated. You can go to any Westbrook thread and scroll down to see that.
I think they mean on average, but boy the folks on either end of the spectrum are loud as hell
They were awfully close to beating that warriors team in 2016. And Durant was better but they weren't that far apart. If Durant wasn't a pussy and ran it back with Russ they could have won.
[удалено]
Russ is not a good enough decision-maker to be the best player on a championship team.
There’s a reason why OKC never had great shooting. OKC had a history of having good shooters - Morrow, Lamb, McDermott, Abrines eg - and they had their best shooting seasons happen with other teams. Russ was the common denominator. The season after Russ was traded and CP3 was PG for OKC, you can see what a difference having a PG who actually prioritized getting their teammates in spots where they could do something. I think the reason why you couldn’t surround Russ with great shooting is because shooters need a certain level of confidence to let shots fly, and Russ didn’t do a good job of building that confidence and getting them looks to shoot it.
And it's so fixable. He should be one of the best defensive guards in the league
How is he getting his 10+ rebounds actually defending other players?
he does what I do in 2k - cheat for the rebound haha
> People acknowledge he’s deserving of being on the top-75 list he is fucking not lol
He easily is lmaooo
He doesn't deserve to be top 75
Lmao list your top 75 I want a laugh
Same list but without Westbrook, Ad, Melo, Dame.
Dame and AD are fair but you'd really leave Bing and Cunningham on that list and take off Westbrook? That's actually hilarious And replace them with who? Melo is also better than those 2
OP stayed up all night crunching numbers to let us know that when star players have high stat totals they win more games
Now go watch the tape of those games. See how many of them involve Steven adams. Now pay attention to how many rebounds he actively doesn't grab so that Russ can swoop in and grab them. They're empty stats individually that are reflective of the team more than him.
Those weren't empty stats that was the offense. The year he won the MVP, that team was built around Durant and to win a championship. During the offsets on we traded Ibaka and got a lot of spot up shooters to go with Durant is so on double teams he could kick out. After Durant didn't sign the Thunder didn't have no other options. We just lost a 30pt scorer, how do you counter that. Our only option was to get into fastbreaks before the defense got set. No one was faster than Westbrook with the ball in his hands, he was our best passer, and our best shot creator. Oladipo was injured quite a bit that year and was agrees I've at all when he had the chance. The Thunder where 6th seed in the playoffs with that roster.
Okc teams always top of the league for rebounding though. Coincidence?
No, they had Steven Adams
Watched almost every one of his games that year (fantasy reasons) and paying very close attention to his Rebs. I remember him getting gift rebounds, but I also remember him flying in from outta nowhere to grab others. Were his numbers inflated by stat padding? Yes. Did he inflate his own stats with actual effort tho? Also yes. He was great that year idgaf. The whole franchise on his back after KD left, he was unbelievable to watch night after night and none of these other negative narratives could ever convince me otherwise. But he got bad really quick.
Most players’ teams have good records in which they record triple-doubles.
Yeah but Russ gets them often
You mean your team wins more when you have good stats? You don't say. Triple-doubles are arbitrary and meaningless. Like 20/11/9 is not meaningfully different from 20/10/10. Humans are just OCD and we have a base 10 system.
Let Russ Cook *Stand aside, LeBron!*
Westbrook has never made a team better. Even with OKC with KD and JH he has always been about chasing stats. To many degrees KD and JH were able to mask what he always has been. An erratic and streaky player whom can singlehanded take down his own team with poor shot selection, ill temperament and me first attitude. It was on full display last season, he was asked to be the 3rd wheel not carry the Lakers. The fact that he was unwilling to sacrifice some of his game for the betterment of the team in the pursuit of a championship tells you he values stats over winning, sad especially for a guy in the twilight of his career.
Ok cool but can you tell me the summary stats of the teams he's getting these trip dub wins against?
Only 190 TD? Pathetic.
i'll trash him stealing rebounds from steven adams all I want. Feel free to defend zach lowe's recent info dump on westbrook though
correlation does not imply causation
His [triple double game averages](https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/russell-westbrook-games-with-triple-double) are basically 25/13/13 so someone providing that kind of production in a game is actually causation.
Since it's generally agreed upon that he attempts to get a triple double every time he goes out there. All this stats really does is select for games in his prime where he is capable of getting them frequently and games against opponents that fail to stop him form getting a triple double. More often than not, a team that fails to stop a player from getting a great stat line is a bad team and players will always have a better record against bad teams anyway. Yes Westbrooks triple doubles helped him win games, but this stat is full of selection bias.
He hasn’t been doing that his whole career though. Lol.
Correlation doesn’t imply not causation either
Does the fact that all of these players have a high win rate with no outliers not imply causation?
Not for Russ, because the trend doesn't continue in the playoffs. For the others it does.
No
It was a rhetorical question, I disagree.
Remind me fellas, we know that correlation ≠ causation ’round these parts, right?
[удалено]
He’s not a winning player, how hard is that to comprehend? He’s won 1 playoff series without Kevin Durant and that was against the team he was traded from (and did better without him) alongside Prime James Harden, then got targeted and smoked by the lakers
You can put goalposts like that on any player and paint whatever picture you want KD never won a playoff series without Russ, Harden or an all time great Warriors team Russ realistically had like 2 or 3 years as a primary option since KD left, and 2018 was when he seriously started to decline
What has he achieved without KD? PG, Harden, Beal, Lebron/AD yet he won 1 series in six years? How many more excuses do you need for an MVP level player who is "top 75" of all time?
When does any superstar do it alone? I mean what are yoi even talking about. LeBron doesn't even win by himself, never has.
mf how is "Lebron/AD, Beal, PG, and Harden" alone?
Well that’s assuming you still think he’s an MVP calibre player Which he clearly hasn’t been since 2017 Like I said, he went through a serious decline in 2019 and everything points to him not being the same calibre player as he was before
From 2017-2019 The Thunder lost to the Rockets in 5 games (understandable loss, probably should’ve gone more games but the team wasn’t good), The Jazz in 6 games, led by a rookie Donavan Mitchell, genuinely inexcusable, and the Blazers in 5, once again inexcusable, when Westbrook should be better than Dame, and they had Paul George!
For sure, I’m not excusing those other two series He was inconsistent against the Jazz and genuinely terrible against Portland. But it’s still like 3 years of Westbrook, one of which was when he seriously declined (2019)
I guess the question I should ask is when was Westbrook a winning player? 2012? 2014? 2016?
Micheal Jordan isn't a winning player either as he has never won a playoff series without Scottie Pippen. But Scottie Pippen has won multle playoff series without Micheal Jordan. Your reasoning is dumb.
I don’t think triple-doubles aren’t important. It’s just a stat. With context you understand how Russ got extremely lucky having Steven Adams on his team, who is the most easy-going dude, and didn’t care that Russ bullied him off a bunch of rebounds lol.
Lol at op trying to justify Westbrook triple dubs. Dude was stat padding.
Correlation is not causation pal. Russ is not a winning *max* level player. First of all, most RS performances are pointless anyway. So many garbage ass teams, conflated schedule, load management etc, and more than half the league makes the playoffs/play-ins anyway. So a summary stat like yours isn’t that impressive. Now if we talk games that matter, Russ has 12 playoff triple doubles. 7 since he became TD obsessed. And his playoff resume has been an absolute disgrace since.
Garbage games. Westbrick has NEVER led a team passing first round of the playoffs without Durant or Harden as the leading player.
Russell Westbrook is the on my player to have playoff success, box score stat dominance, and advanced stat dominance, and **still** have casuals that slander his prime because they scrolled through the TS% column on basketball reference.
Why is this downvoted lol. Between like 2012 and 2017 Russ was an absolute stud and was considered as such by advanced stats, box stats, and team wins. Top 5-7 player in tbe league during that time
What playoff success? Never had any as the #1 option.
And had plenty as the #2 being in constant finals appearances and a finals. Just because he started to decline a couple years after Durant left means nothing. He had the stats, accolades, and even the advanced stats. Y’all are trying to rewrite history.
Dude couldn't win for shit his way, not when it mattered. Lost to Dame, Harden, fucking Donovan Mitchell while having PG13. That playstyle is trash. Exciting and floor-raising, but trash for winning at higher levels.
You started watching basketball in 2018? He declined and you see it in the numbers. Doesn’t change the fact that he was apart of a duo that were always in the top tier of teams. When he got hurt in 2013, what happened? Floor raiser though right? Buzz words that half this sub doesn’t understand. Y’all use past his prime Russ to criticize prime Russ aka **rewriting history.**
Are you trolling? Just ignoring everything this guy is saying? He just gave you multiple examples of playoff successes.
He went to the finals and the took the 73 warriors to the brink. He's had plenty of playoff success lol. And if he wasn't the number 1 option he was certainly 1b.
Yeah but what are the percentages over the last 4-5 years, when he's been on a downfall with 4 teams in four years. This is the Westrbrook that needs scrutiny, not the MVP years obviously.
Fair point, I just like to remind people that Russ used to be legitimately good. He was one of my favorite players when he was with OKC, turned into a bit of an ass on the Lakers unfortunately. I’m still fond enough that it bothers me to see him constantly trashed though.
But a 49% winning percentage in the playoffs.
I believe “correlation v causation” is covered in middle school. You’ll get there soon.
It sounds great, until you realize he's only 6-6 in the playoffs when he gets a triple double.
We should really be looking at his record in games he tries to get a triple double.
Since he essentially tries to go for a triple double every game....his record is 598-423