The NBA's 65-game eligibility rule for end-of-season awards was supposed to be a win for everyone. More star power on the court, fewer "load management" nights, and a clearer path to MVP trophies and All-NBA nods. But like a lot of well-intentioned rules, it's starting to show some cracks, and the NBPA is rightly pointing to players like Cade Cunningham as prime examples of its unintended consequences.
Cunningham, the Detroit Pistons' undeniable franchise cornerstone, missed 24 games this season. He played 62, just three shy of the threshold. Think about that for a second. He averaged 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds per game, a significant leap from his previous healthy season. His True Shooting percentage climbed to 54.9%, up from 50.8% in 2021-22. He was the engine for a young Pistons team, often the only consistent offensive threat. Yet, because of a few missed games – some of which were due to legitimate injury recovery, not just rest – he's out of the running for All-NBA or any other individual hardware. It feels a little punitive, doesn't it?
The league's intention was clear: get stars playing more often. And to some extent, it worked. We saw fewer high-profile players sitting out back-to-backs when they were on the cusp of that 65-game mark. Joel Embiid, for example, battled through a knee injury to hit 39 games before his season-ending meniscus tear, narrowly qualifying for MVP consideration. But the rule doesn't differentiate between a player taking a night off for rest and a player sidelined by a legitimate, unavoidable injury. That's where the NBPA has a real case.
Consider Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's MVP run. He played 75 games, averaging 30.1 points and leading the Thunder to the top seed in the West. Nikola Jokic played 79 games. Luka Doncic played 70. These are iron men, and they deserve their accolades. But what about a player like Cunningham, who put up impressive numbers in the games he did play, who clearly elevated his team (even if the Pistons still struggled to win games, finishing 14-68)? The current rule treats a sprained ankle in November the same as a planned rest day in March. That's a problem for player evaluation and, frankly, for the spirit of the awards.
The NBPA isn't asking for the rule to be scrapped entirely. Their proposal, at minimum, is to amend it. Maybe it's a sliding scale for games played, or an exemption for players who miss time due to specific, documented injuries. Perhaps a player who plays 60-64 games could still be eligible if they meet certain statistical thresholds or play a high percentage of their team's games while healthy. Look, nobody wants to go back to the days of Kawhi Leonard playing 50 games and still being in the DPOY conversation. That was excessive. But the pendulum might have swung too far the other way.
Here's the thing: individual awards, while not the ultimate goal, matter to players. They impact contract negotiations, legacy, and even Hall of Fame candidacies down the road. To disqualify a player like Cunningham, who clearly dedicated himself to his craft and performed at an All-Star level for the majority of the season, simply because he was three games short of an arbitrary number, feels fundamentally unfair. The league needs to find a better balance.
My take? The league needs to implement an injury reserve clause for award eligibility next season. If a player misses 10+ games due to a single, officially documented injury, they should get a proportionate reduction in the 65-game requirement. Otherwise, we're going to keep seeing cases like Cunningham's, and it's bad for the players and, ultimately, for the integrity of the awards.