You must’ve meant to say translate to a ring because I googled came this came up
You're mistaking correlation for causation.
Triple doubles don't translate into wins, in any fashion, for anyone.
Since Westbrook is a ball-dominant guard, his teammates are going to get scoring opportunities off his passes (that's the main source of offense), so it only makes sense if he's getting a high amount of assists that his team his going to be a greater position of winning (because they're making shots), as opposed to if his team isn't scoring off his passes, which leads to low assists, they're going to be in a worse position of winning. But there's another part to this: just because a player accumulates a high amount of points, assists and rebounds doesn't that they're putting their team in the best position of winning. Far too often folks think that because
x-player has a game with a tally of 18 points, 12 assists and 12 rebounds that they played well, or that they were the main reason their team won the game, or that they're not to blame if their team lost.
And there's another part too: assists aren't the only way you can create scoring opportunities for your teammates; assists are only what is essentially the last pass, and they're not even based on setting your teammate up to score. It's simply a pass before a basket is scored, in black and white.
Same goes for rebounds.
Westbrook grabbing an uncontested rebound off a missed shot doesn't translate into winning. His teammate that exhausted himself for half the shot-clock defending the primary ball-handler and forcing him into a tough shot
does translate into winning, yet it's not reflected in the box score stats.