The NBA's 65-Game Folly Is Hurting Everyone
The NBA’s 65-game rule, designed to incentivize star players to suit up more often, is becoming a bigger headache than it’s worth. Just ask Cade Cunningham. The Detroit Pistons guard, a clear bright spot on a rebuilding team, finished the season averaging 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds per game. Those are All-Star caliber numbers, especially for a guy playing on a squad that won just 14 games. But because he only played 62 games, Cunningham was ineligible for any postseason awards, including All-NBA selections. The NBPA is rightfully pushing back, calling for a serious re-evaluation of the whole thing.
The Cost of Missed Games
Look, the league's intentions were probably good. Fans pay good money to see their favorite players, and load management had become a real issue. But penalizing players for legitimate injuries or strategic rest, especially when their teams are out of the playoff hunt, feels punitive and short-sighted. Cunningham missed time with a shin injury early in the season and then a knee issue later on. He wasn't sitting out just because. He was genuinely hurt. Now, instead of being recognized for his individual brilliance in a tough situation, he's just another statistic on the ineligible list. Pascal Siakam, who played 64 games and averaged 21.7 points and 6.2 rebounds, also missed out. Same for Donovan Mitchell, 55 games, 26.6 points per night. These aren't fringe guys.
Here's the thing: the rule was meant to combat load management, but it's creating perverse incentives. Teams might push a player to play a meaningless 65th game in April just so he can qualify for an award bonus in his contract, risking further injury. Or, conversely, a team might decide to shut down a player who's close to the threshold but has a minor ding, knowing he won't qualify anyway. It’s a lose-lose. The optics are bad, and it doesn't actually solve the core problem of player health.
Beyond the Star Power
It’s not just about the big names and the All-NBA teams, either. Consider a player like Victor Wembanyama. He played 71 games, clearing the threshold easily, and rightfully won Rookie of the Year. But what if he'd played 63? His season, where he put up 21.4 points, 10.6 rebounds, and 3.6 blocks, would have been just as dominant, but he would've been excluded from consideration. That’s a disservice to the player and to the historical record. The NBPA's argument that there should be some flexibility, perhaps an injury exemption, holds a lot of water. You can't legislate away every injury. Basketball is a physical game.
Real talk: the NBA needs to trust its voters more. If a player truly had an impactful season but missed a handful of games due to unavoidable circumstances, the voters will know. They aren’t idiots. The current rule is a blunt instrument attempting to solve a nuanced problem. It's punishing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
A Better Path Forward
The league could implement a sliding scale, or perhaps a committee review for players who fall just short due to documented injuries. Or, radical idea, just let the voters decide. We don't need a numerical gatekeeper for every single award. The NFL doesn't have a 14-game rule for MVP, and players miss games all the time there. Patrick Mahomes won MVP in 2018 playing 16 games, but if he'd missed three with a sprained ankle, would his season have been less valuable? Of course not.
The current 65-game rule is a bureaucratic mess. It undervalues legitimate injury, creates unnecessary pressure, and ultimately diminishes the recognition deserving players receive. My bold prediction? The NBPA's push will force the league to amend this rule before the 2025-26 season. They have to.