Oscar benefitted from a similar thing too.
Why Arent Teams Roughing Up Westbrook When He Gets These Fughazi Triple-Doubles??
- Thread starter Homeboy Runny-Ray
- Start date
BigE214
Future GOAT
Everyone who gets them does rather it's letting you get rebounds or passing up buckets for someone else to get an assist. It is what it is
Then his triple doubles shouldn't be valued as highly as they are. Why should something that has virtually no impact on the game be valued so highly? Who gives a fukk? Precisely, but perhaps you should be telling those folk who prop his game up because of the triple doubles 'not to give a fukk' instead.
ReturnOfJudah
Veteran
Russell Westbrook & his Oklahoma bytches.
For a lot of people those 3 extra reb a game was literally the difference between him winning MVP and James Harden winning it. I thought Harden should have won it and everyone I argued with kept using Westbrook averaging a triple double for a season as their main point. Harden averages 29, 11, 8. So essentially 162 or so rebounds was the difference.
Guru
1995 -
fukk westbrook
If Westbrook didn't average a triple-double, Harden probably would've won MVP, which is unfair to Harden and anybody else who has to go up against a flawed narrative. Which is why I keep telling folk to stop using the box score as a measurement of a player's performance, value and impact. It's half the reason there's so many arguments on this board, because folk are stuck in the past and can't think for themselves.
Here Comes the Pain
Superstar
Then his triple doubles shouldn't be valued as highly as they are. Why should something that has virtually no impact on the game be valued so highly? Who gives a fukk? Precisely, but perhaps you should be telling those folk who prop his game up because of the triple doubles 'not to give a fukk' instead.
They're valued because they're good for a story.
A couple rebounds doesn't really negate the STORY of what Russ was doing last year. If that's going to factor into your MVP vote substantially, there was nothing about Harden or the Rockets that gripped the NBA like Russ did.
Harden had more weapons.
The Tripple double narrative did make it a historical thing but the really reason why Russ > Harden is because he was doing some insane shyt with much less.
Again, people cast their MVP votes on different things. I would argue that even with the tripple double story attached to Russ, a vote for Harden would be more about numbers (statlines, wins) than a vote for someone who was clearly short handed getting his team to over perform.
this the OFFICIAL anti Westbrook thread?
:saywhatakeem:
:saywhatakeem:
Broad Street Bully
Sick & Tide Sixers/Phillies/Cowboys fan smh
Exactly. A story, not actual gameplay or impact, but a fictional narrative.
Except Westbrook only won MVP over Harden because he averaged a triple-double. So basically you're saying that the MVP is not really about being the best player during the season at all, but who has the biggest narrative behind them? You see why folk might take issue with that? You can't tell them 'not to give a fukk' when they want the MVP to be awarded to a player for their actual gameplay, and not because of their story.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So even if a player is doing shyt that isn't conducive to winning, he should just keep doing it just because the team wins?So what
As long as they winning he can grab as many rebounds as he wants.
Here Comes the Pain
Superstar
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So even if a player is doing shyt that isn't conducive to winning, he should just keep doing it just because the team wins?
Hell yeah.
I would be patting up my stats too if I was him.
We already winning as is, why not???
Back to back mvps sounds pretty good to me
