It was narrative in that the triple double record is not comparable to the home run record in baseball or the single season rushing record in football. It got raised up as this pinnacle record that had mystique and dignity. The number 10 is an arbitrary threshold and became easily popularized because of a catchy buzzword. But this is not some record that players had been trying year in year out to break. If Westbrook had truly won based on "stats", his efficiency numbers would have had to factor in to the equation. His efficiency numbers were atrocious, he had a historically high usage rate that is an outlier by a significant margin even past the previous highest usage rate outlier ('05 Kobe). Add to that the fact that his rebounds were artificially inflated by Adams and Sabonis pulling off of uncontested rebounds and what you had last year was a grotesque manipulation of the box score by a franchise that made a desperate ploy to keep a star after just losing their other star for no return.
I remember RW supporters asking, "is he ENOUGH games over .500?" Russell wouldn't have won with a .500 record IMO, or even a 43-39 record. OKC was easily over .500.
Efficiency-wise, Russell led the league in PER. He also led in BPM. It's okay to admit Russell had an AWESOME statistical year. Also, the HR and rushing records have happened more times than a player averaging a tri-dub.
PER is heavily affected by rebounds. It also does not punish a player for shooting inefficiently. uPER = (1 / MP) * [ 3P + (2/3) * AST + (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG + (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG))) - VOP * TOV - VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG) - VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT) + VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB) + VOP * DRB% * ORB + VOP * STL + VOP * DRB% * BLK - PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]
I didn’t see any Russ supporters that actually had a vote asking that I heard talking heads in the media say that Russ would have their vote if he averaged a triple double and just made the playoffs...Chris Broussard was 1 of the more noticeable ones that said that
Russ had a great statistical year, but so did Harden...Harden damn near averaged a triple double himself Harden had the wins and stats, and Russ had the stats and the overwhelming edge when it came to narrative the media made it their mission to anoint him the MVP before the season even started, Harden was just an inconvenience who couldn’t be ignored because of the season he and the Rockets had that no one in the media saw coming
Does saying, "that actually had a vote", mean you did hear it, they just didn't have a vote? Agreed though, Broussard is mostly a dumbass.
No, the home run record has not happened more times as a trip-dub since the 60s, except for, using @DonKnock's words, "a grotesque manipulation of the box score" by steroid use. Not one of those record breakers has been elected into the HOF, yet, and might never. But that point aside, what DonKnock was saying is the trip-dub is not a record. No one was out to break that. If they were, and it was considered a big deal like the HR record, Magic and Bird would have done it in the 80s...unless they were too busy winning, and the trip dub was getting in their way. Oh, and Harden would have done it last year...he was only off by less than 2 rpg.
I didn’t hear anyone that supported Russ asking that question...only people I heard really questioning OKC’s record were those arguing in favor of Harden
You're only adding "1960's" to help the argument. I'm quite sure Babe Ruth broke the record at least twice, then Maris broke his. That makes 3x, minumum. Btw- Maris has Zero steroid suspicion and still isn't a HOF. Okay, tri-dub is not a "record", but rather an "achievement." It's a conspicuous achievement that virtually no one ever thought would happen again. Westbrook doesn't win MVP with a .500 record, though IMO.
Do you agree the "playoff" criterion coincides with "record"? "Winning" was a factor. The degree of the "winning" is what's in question.
it seemed pretty clear to me that all Westbrook had to do was hold onto his 6th or 7th seed (OKC was never in danger of being the 8th seed when these debates were going on), and that was good enough for his supporters/many in the media...so IMO 43+ wins would have been enough for him to win the award last season
This record is not comparable in its level of visability to the HR record though. It would be like if next year they pull the numbers for Babe Ruth and he had 67 games where he batted .500 and they start calling these “Five-double-0 games”; and Aaron Judge winds up with 70 “Five-double-0 games” and that is what puts him over the top of Altuve for MVP. No one was trying for “Five-double-0 games” for all those years in between it is just something that someone came up with that sounds catchy and is now being used for some irrational reason as a deciding factor.
what? I'm adding 1960 because the NBA didn't exist back in Ruth's time. Hell, let's call in the 50's then. You can't compare 90 years to 50 years...unfairly adding more years is helping your argument. The HR record has only been set once in the time the NBA existed, without "grotesque manipulation of the boxscore." Anyhoot, the point it that record is such a big deal, people cheated to break it...and the sports world nearly stopped while watching it. Westbrook cheated too, but no one really cared because the novelty was cute, but not that important to question his motivations...and the franchise clearly wanting him to do whatever he wanted, because they needed him to re-sign.
Thinking more, 1960's does have more legitimacy since MLB has existed twice as long as NBA. But Ruth, Maris, and Bonds all won MVP the year they broke the record. And EVERY season, it was HUGE news while the feat was happening.
True. Regardless, EVERY HR record-setting season has been a HUGE deal. But since we're Rockets fans, we'll blowoff averaging tri-dub.
I just don’t see why averaging a triple double should be given so much weight when u literally had another dude averaging 29, 8, and 11 on much better efficiency while leading a team to a lot more wins while also not having another star on the roster...Harden lead a top 10 offense of all time (Westbrook’s statline led OKC to the 17th ranked offense in the league) and was 1 point shy of producing the most points in NBA history but because Westbrook’s statline has a name and Harden’s 29, 8, and 11 doesn’t, Russ is allowed to get an MVP with that record and that playoff seed
This is the exact point we’re trying to make though. That HR record is held in high esteem. Many people have actively gone after it. The triple double record was never that. Michael Jordan didn’t go after it. Magic didn’t go after it. Kobe’ ‘ LeBron’ ‘ Etc. It was an opportunistic effort.
So averaging a tri-dub wasn't held in high esteem? People often used that single criterion to explain Oscar's greatness. I think, most people think, breaking the HR record is more fathomable than averaging a tri-dub.
