I remembered experts saying that someone would score 100 points in one game again before someone would average a triple double.

This guy has done it twice.

Actually 4 of the last 5 seasons now.

Has anyone studied why guys are so commonly getting triple doubles in this era? The lack of physicality likely gives offensive players more space and more threes taken and subsequent misses means smaller guys are probably grabbing more rebounds which lead to fastbreaks.

Any other theories?

Offenses are obscenely efficient, and teams play at a really high pace, so points and assists are much easier to come by. Nobody contests the O boards anymore, teams send all five guys back in D trans, so guards can chase rebounds instead of having to worry about boxing out, or deflecting it to an opponent if they try to take it away from a teammate.

Individual defensive rebounds are pretty much meaningless stats in today's NBA.

Well I mean, Steven Adams had a triple double earlier this season.

Most stats are meaningless in today's NBA with all the triple doubles and 50-60 point games due to the pace and lack of defence. Westbrook can average a triple double but he''s still a flawed inefficient basketball player that a garbage franchise like the Wizards wanted.

No serious team wants Westbrook on their team which tells you all you need to know about his 'achievements'.

I don't actually follow the NBA so I could be off-base, but the whole thing reminds me of that year Wilt decided he was going to lead the league in assists, so he refused to shoot, kept abusing teammates for missing shots after he passed them the ball or for not shooting, etc, and his team absolutely sucked.

That's exactly the same as the FIBA rule.

That's right stats have always been inflated in the NBA not to mention their games go 20% longer too. I wouldn't agree with Rondo's brother in calling Russ 'trash' but he's not far off just a stat padding chump really. No one's going to have this guy anywhere near the great PG's like Magic & Stockton even though his stats suggest he should be spoken about in the same company. Meaningless.

Now just take a moment to think what Steve Nash would do in this era with higher usage rates; and imagine what his PHX offense could do in today's game.

In his prime Suns days, his usage rate hovered around 20-23% each year.

For comparison, Westbrook was clocking 35ish % UR and even cranked it to 41.8% one year in OKC.

Imagine Nash having an extra 15-20 possessions each night (just on his own); with the type of offensive game-plans of today's world.

Nash was never a usage guy.

What a hollow achievement since it is in today's defenceless NBA, he may be a stats leader but will never be a champion.

In the game yesterday where he broke the record his Wizards lost because he bricked a horribly taken three when only down by a point. I thought that was fitting.

Philly coughed up a 3-1 lead, but plenty of great teams have had that happen to them

"Philly coughed up a 3-1 lead, but plenty of great teams have had that happen to them
Name two."

Thunder to the Warriors in Conf Finals and Warriors to the Cavs in the finals of the same year

the Nowitzki Mavs lost to the Baron Davis Warriors as well.

Thunder to the Warriors in Conf Finals and Warriors to the Cavs in the finals of the same year

I named three, you refuted one, so I guess I got two right!

The Nuggets-Sonics series was best-of-five.

Houston lost from 3-1 up on their way to winning a title?

No they came back from a 3-1 deficit

The discussion is about great teams that lost from 3-1 up, not teams that came back from 1-3 down.

"Were the Thunder really that good that year?"

Prime KD and Russ. Would probably have been favourites against the Cavs if they go through the Warriors. Its probably a judgement call.

Wait, KD went to the Warriors after the 73-9 season?

Yes. And?

Nothing, particularly. That's just even more of a bitchy ring-chasing move than I'd thought.