Russell Westbrook Had The Perfect Answer For A Question About His Stats Following A Game 2 Loss

Thunder's Russell Westbrook on posting NBA's first postseason 50-point triple-double: "I don't give a f--- about the line. We lost." pic.twitter.com/hRZG4zUkSy

— Ben Golliver (@BenGolliver) April 20, 2017

How would you grade your line? Really?

Can we all agree that was a stupid fucking question?

I know we can all agree that Russell Westbrook was - at least in part - motivated by his pursuit of the triple-double record/MVP award throughout the regular season. I know we can all agree that - despite this double digit assist average - his play alienates his teammates from time to time. I know we can all agree that there is level of selfishness to his game and a level of superficiality to his mindset. Hell, we can even agree that - even while putting up a stat line of 51-13-10 - Russell Westbrook's record 14(!) missed shots in the 4th quarter alone were one of the main reasons his team is now in an 0-2 hole.

So let's also agree that a question about his own numbers following playoff loss is a stupid one. That's not even to say that it shouldn't have been asked. The fact that Westbrook had the highest scoring triple-double in NBA postseason history in a losing effort was the elephant in the room, and the media makes their living exploiting those elephants worse than Barnum & Bailey used to.

Still, the mere implication that someone as competitive as Russell Westbrook is interested in anything other than winning games come playoff time is asinine. He may not go about it in the most efficient way, but - in his mind - he thought he was giving his team the best chance to even the series. He may be right considering the consistency with which the players around him having been laying bricks, but whether he was wrong or not is irrelevant. That grade was asked of someone that has gone balls-to-the-wall from the second the season kicked off, and the fact that it hinted that he might sleep better by finishing at the head of an inferior class makes it wholly deserving of its IDGAF answer.