A triple-double is a basketball term used when a player has double-digit numbers in three different statistics. For example, 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists would qualify as a triple-double. Up until last season, Oscar Robinson was the only NBA player to ever average a triple-double over a full season and currently holds the record for most triple-doubles in a career at 186.

At the conclusion of this season, Russell Westbrook is now not only the second person ever to achieve this feat but the only player to ever accomplish it for two consecutive seasons. At first glance, a player contributing more to their team would logically be a good thing. But Westbrooks recent stats have caused quite a stir as to whether his play is actually benefitting his team. In truth, it is probably a little yes and a little no. But why?

Antonio Daniels made an interesting point on The Herd with Colin Cowherd. He took every triple-double that Westbrook has had in two seasons (67) and looked at the Thunders record in those games. OKC went 53-14, a 79% win percentage. Extrapolated to a full 82-game season, that would come out to nearly 65 wins. Daniels' conclusion is that triple-doubles lead to wins for the Thunder, and it would be difficult to argue that data.

Interestingly enough, LeBron James had 18 triple-doubles this season with a 14-4 record in those games. In an 82-game season, that's 64 wins (I'm starting to sense a pattern here). Ben Simmons had the third most triple-doubles with 12 and a 9-3 record in those games. Over 82 games, that would come out to 62 wins. Nikola Jokic had the fourth most with a win percentage of 90% a.k.a. 74 wins. It really shouldn't be that surprising that when a single player is allowed to take over a stat sheet with a triple-double that wins would follow.

So what is the controversy with Westbrook? Shouldn't he be viewed as the best of the best if his best effort occurs most often and leads to wins for his team? That can be answered, once again, by the Thunders record when Westbrook doesn't achieve a triple-double. Over the past two seasons, when Westbrook isn't recording a triple-double, Oklahoma City's record is an abysmal 42-59, 41.5 win-percentage, or a 31-win season.

Now, this does not include games where Russ simply doesn't play, just ones without a triple-double from him. Last season, the easy answer for why the Thunder was so bad when Russ wasn't his best was that his teammates simply were not good enough to compensate. That made sense until the Thunder added Paul George and Carmelo Anthony and only one win. Maybe Melo isn't what he used to be, but I find it difficult to believe he would only add a single win to any given team in the NBA. Throw PG13 in there and the addition of only one win becomes astounding.

Although it is true that win-percentage decreases for the other players I mentioned when they don't record a triple-double, the difference is far less extreme. Many people believe that the problem with Westbrook is that he is simply difficult to play with. LeBron is praised for his ability to increase the play level of his teammates, Russ seems to only make his teammates worse.

For a player averaging over 10 assists-per-game and whose defensive ability seems to be more than serviceable, it's strange that Russ is getting the blame for his teammates not picking what little slack he leaves. Both of those attributes of Russ would point to him being a great teammate to play with. But players like Durant, Harden, and Oladipo all leave OKC and play better while PG and Melo arrive and provide no noticeable change to the team, while also playing less effectively.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities. The first being that Russ has a usage percentage that is so high that when he is bad, it is detrimental to the team. Usage percentage is basically how often Russ touches the ball on a given possession. Since I can't find that stat, I can't confirm it.

The second and probably most likely option is that the coaching staff on OKC is atrocious at building a scheme to best suit the abilities of their players. It would be understandable last season to be dependent on Russ no matter how he is playing that game. This season, with PG and Melo, there is no reason to have to force feed Russ the ball. If he is having a bad night, PG alone should be more than able to take over a game. Sure, Russ is an extremely talented individual, but he is liable to have bad games. That's why Paul George is there.

So while it is reasonable to be upset at Russ for occasionally playing inefficiently, it is absurd that the coaches can't make adjustments to a game plan to account for when Russell is having those high-turnover, low field-goal-percentage games he and any other player is capable of having. It is especially bad when Russ is the one taking all of the blame.