Is the NBA's 65-game rule rewriting history, or just making it? It's a question that's sparking debate among fans and analysts alike, and at its heart lies a rule designed to combat 'load management' that might be doing more harm than good.
This season, we're seeing a fascinating scenario unfold. Cade Cunningham of the Detroit Pistons is emerging as a strong contender for the NBA's Most Valuable Player award. He's leading the league in total assists, is fifth in value over replacement player, and eighth in win shares. What's truly remarkable is that he's doing this on a Pistons team that few predicted would be at the top of the Eastern Conference. However, the narrative around his potential MVP win is complicated by a relatively new rule from the 2023 NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement. This rule states that players must participate in at least 63 games (playing 20 or more minutes in each) to be eligible for end-of-season awards. Essentially, players can only miss 17 games during the regular season before being disqualified from award consideration.
The intention behind this rule was to curb the growing trend of 'load management,' where star players would strategically sit out games to rest. While we've seen some stars, like Kawhi Leonard, reduce their participation in load management, the rule's impact is proving to be a double-edged sword.
Consider the league's current top performers. Nikola Jokić, Victor Wembanyama, and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander are all having phenomenal seasons. Yet, under the 65-game rule, their paths to awards are precarious. Jokić can only afford to miss one more game, Wembanyama three, and Gilgeous-Alexander six. With approximately 20 games remaining in the regular season for most teams, these stars are now in a tight spot.
And this is the part most people miss: Notable players like Giannis Antetokounmpo, Stephen Curry, and LeBron James have already surpassed the 17-game limit. For LeBron James, this means he's on track to miss an All-NBA team selection for the first time since his rookie year in 2004. While one missed accolade might seem minor for a legend like James, these are precisely the achievements that shape a player's legacy once their careers conclude.
Let's rewind to the 1996-1997 season. Shaquille O'Neal, despite missing 31 games due to knee injuries, put up incredible numbers: 26.2 points per game and 12.5 rebounds per game. He was also highly ranked in advanced metrics like box plus/minus and defensive rating. Even with his significant missed time, Shaq was deservedly named to the All-NBA Third Team. This highlights a crucial point: awards should reflect a player's dominance and value to their team, not just their availability.
But here's where it gets controversial: Shaq's career is a testament to this. He played no more than 60 games in several seasons between 1995-96 and 1998-99 and still made an All-NBA team each of those seasons. He even missed the 65-game mark in 2005-2006 but still earned a spot on the All-NBA First Team. These seasons were instrumental in his 14 All-NBA Team selections, solidifying his status as one of the greatest centers ever.
Applying this strict game-count to the MVP award presents a different challenge. Historically, only two MVPs have played fewer than 65 games in a regular season (excluding lockout-shortened seasons). A prime example is Bill Walton in the 1977-1978 season. He led the Portland Trail Blazers to an incredible 50-10 record before a season-ending injury with 22 games left. Without him, the Blazers struggled, going 8-14. That was Walton's only MVP award, and his immense impact wouldn't have been recognized under the current 65-game rule.
Returning to this season, players like Jokić and Gilgeous-Alexander are neck-and-neck in nearly every key statistical category that measures a player's impact. If either of them falls short of the 65-game mark, their exceptional value could go unacknowledged. And if Cunningham, by sheer availability, ends up winning MVP, future generations might wonder if health, rather than pure basketball dominance, was the deciding factor.
This rule forces stars like Jokić and Gilgeous-Alexander into a difficult dilemma: do they prioritize resting for the playoffs, or do they push themselves on the court for the sake of awards, recognition, and potential contract bonuses? We saw the toll the postseason can take last year, with Jayson Tatum and Tyrese Haliburton suffering Achilles tendon tears in the later rounds. If Jokić plays out the rest of the regular season, wins MVP, but then suffers a season-ending injury in the playoffs, what then?
The 65-game rule is simply too rigid. While games played should certainly be a factor in award considerations, it shouldn't be the sole determinant for disqualification. A more nuanced approach, perhaps a minimum number of minutes played throughout the season, could better capture a player's overall value and volume of contribution.
The NBA needs to acknowledge the demanding 82-game regular season schedule and the increasing athleticism in the game, which inevitably leads to more injuries for its top players. The league was right to address load management, but the focus now must shift to protecting its most marketable stars from the alarming rise in injuries. Otherwise, this rule risks fundamentally altering the historical narrative of the game.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that the 65-game rule is too harsh, or is it a necessary measure to ensure player participation? Let us know in the comments below!
