It's an n = 11, but let's unpack it anyway.
His points per contest are not predictive of wins; in fact, there's an inverse relationship (r = -0.22, p = .52) that begins to trend towards significance when you pare down the sample to the first ten games (r = -0.44, p = .20). This may seem like a dirty trick, but it also suggests that the team has played better when he scores less (plus the Suns stink, Booker went off, and Kyrie otherwise goes unpunished for Murray's 48)...
And that's what his stats show more broadly. In these first 11 games:
in wins: 20 pts, 16 FGA (FG%=42; 3FG%=40), 4.6 reb, 5.7 asst
in losses: 23 pts, 17 FGA (FG%=57; 3FG%=46), 5.8 reb, 4.8 asst
In wins, he shoots/scores/rebounds less, actually shoots significantly worse too(!), but averages 1 more assist; in losses, he shoots/scores/rebounds more, but passes less.
Worse, he shows a generally similar trend across the 17-18 season:
in wins (31 mpg): 23.9 pts, 17.4 FGA (FG%=50; 3FG%=41), 4 reb, 5.3 ast
in losses (34 mpg): 25.5 pts, 19.6 FGA (FG%=47; 3FG%=40), 3.2 reb, 4.7 ast
I think most of us know that he's a talented but high-usage scorer, does little more to positively impact the game, and is a negative on defense. These numbers paint an ugly picture though, and I wonder how his peers compare (e.g. Lillard, Curry). I hope similarly, or that he figures this out by May/June.
Although if you believe he's committed to helping the Celtics win, there's some reason to be hopeful -- we fare better when he shoots less and distributes more.