ForneauCosmique | Spurs

312 | 3 hours ago

I love the “11+4=15” part. Really helps me understand your point

brnccnt7

39 | 3 hours ago

I needed a calculator

DameTime710

12 | 3 hours ago

I had to use my toes!

Joshstradaymus | Wizards

2 | 2 hours ago

I also used your toes

ThreePlyStrength | Raptors

1 | 35 minutes ago

I was born in Canada so I did it in my head.

imperialmoose | Bulls

1 | 19 minutes ago

Wow,. I was today days old when I learned this life hack! Thanks!

FirstTribeElder | Spurs

8 | 3 hours ago

Very concise, direct to the point explanation. No flamboyant, over the top words needed.

OheiShotani

4 | an hour ago

Source?

Call555JackChop | Suns

1 | an hour ago

But what’s that in Terryology?

ForneauCosmique | Spurs

1 | 30 minutes ago

We need Scott Steiner to help us figure this out

crustydemonburgers | Thunder

112 | 4 hours ago

Let’s be more positive, Shai and Luka are 8 and 9 games away from officially qualifying. Ant is only 7 too.

Queen_Of_The_Castle | DAL

10 | an hour ago

No way they miss it. Only people I’m worried about missing is Wemby and Jokic. They deserve flowers for this season.

YpsitheFlintsider

-24 | an hour ago

They don’t if they don’t qualify.

pagny77 | Timberwolves

1 | 19 minutes ago

Ant is injured, Shai (more recently) and luka have both struggled with i juries this season but no reason to think they’ll miss more outside of resting SGA the last few games

qotsabama | DAL

1 | 5 minutes ago

I think everyone makes it. Even Jokic who has like no games left to miss. The biggest negative is guys maybe grinding it out when they probably should be getting more rest and it impacts playoff ball.

drippo-potamus | Spurs

66 | 3 hours ago

I still think the rule was needed because the resting was getting a little bit ridiculous. I think it’s a good correction for the time being, but eventually it will be scrapped

AlohaReddit49 | Timberwolves

20 | 2 hours ago

Agreed. I think overall the rule is good and the people pushing back are missing the overall point. No one wins awards when playing 65 games in a regular length season anyway. I believe it’s like 1 DeAndre Jordan year and thats it for like 40 years. It’s just that they’ve said the quiet part aloud and made it a rule.

That being said, I imagine this year could be the year it changes. All it takes is a list of major players missing awards before the awards lose value. Imagine if Victor, Shai, Jokic, Ant, Luka are all out for MVP/1st team. No disrespect but the league/media probably wouldnt like that.

StatitikFanboy

12 | an hour ago

As a fan, I much prefer the voters to make their choices taking all of the season’s context into account than the NBA forcing those criterias into them.

Like obviously a 60 games shai/jokic would win this mvp over a 75 games cade.

But on the opposite side for some other seasons, the number of missed games might lose you the mvp if the other candidate is good enough.

igby1

8 | an hour ago

The awards lost value before the rule change too because players were awarded for load management.

Who cares if multiple superstars miss out on awards because they couldn’t play enough.

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

1 | 11 minutes ago

Most of the time someone got all-NBA before 2023 with less than 65 games it was deserved, they were better than the next best qualifying guy up.

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 8 minutes ago

No, the pro rule people are missing the point. The point being that the rule is just being pedantic for the sake of it.

What you said about Jordan literally proves that the rule is unnecessary.

wormhole222 | Heat

7 | an hour ago

The awards weren’t being awarded in a bad way before the rule. Voters took missed games into account. It’s just now there is room for stupid things to happen if a player is a few games short.

It’s obvious this was bad because this rule was made to discourage players from missing games not to fix awards. They should try and prevent people from missing games by get this making rules not allowing them to miss games. That or make it so they no longer are incentivized to rest.

ruggnuget | Nuggets

4 | 2 hours ago

I hate the rule because games played was always a consideration. Balancing whether a better player provided more value in 60 games vs someone less good who played 80 was a reasonable part of it. If someone is so great they provide enough value to be all nba in 55 games then they should be allowed.

WhiteHeterosexualGuy | Hawks

3 | an hour ago

It’s part of why people look at total win shares as a metric, even though the stats nerds these days discount everything that’s not a 6+ letter acronym

mcy33zy

1 | 17 minutes ago

Once Embiid retires they can get rid of it completely.

calman877 | 76ers

2 | 42 minutes ago

What’s your best example of the resting being ridiculous? I think people have this recollection of guys just sitting out every other game for no reason, and that wasn’t really happening

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 18 minutes ago

It was literally just Kawhi and Embiid.

Wemby, Jokic, Shai and now Ant all had legit injuries this season. This rule is dumb.

calman877 | 76ers

1 | 11 minutes ago

Exactly, Kawhi and Embiid who are going to miss time either because they’re resting or injured regardless. Probably the two most injury prone guys in the league and there was a massive overcorrection

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

1 | 9 minutes ago

Yeah. Other than chronically injured guys like Kawhi/Embiid, it was mostly legitimate injuries or guys sitting out of the 3 rd game in 4 days.

_discordantsystem_

1 | 10 minutes ago

Can’t we slightly adjust instead of scrapping entirely cause it’s not perfect?

Sad_Process843

45 | 4 hours ago

I kinda hate this rule but love it at the same time.

blacksoxing | Thunder

47 | 3 hours ago

I respect the rule. It’s obviously “cramped” up some MVP/All NBA candidates but the counterpoint is shit….how can you be awarded something if you only played 70% of the season???I felt like there were times people got those All NBA awards based off name alone AND when that shit happens it buffs up their HOF accolades which can turn a great player into a HOFer when in reality they were not always a HOFer

nowhathappenedwas | NBA

45 | 3 hours ago

how can you be awarded something if you only played 70% of the season???

It’s obvious that a guy who plays 64 games can be more valuable than a guy who plays 67 games.

We trust voters to decide whether a guy who plays 67 games was better than a guy who played 70 games, so it’s silly to not trust them to decide whether a guy who plays 64 was better than the guy who plays 67.

The problem has less to do with MVP (it’s hard to be the most valuable while playing fewer than 65 games) and more to do with 2nd and 3rd team All NBA.

In reality, the new rule has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with encouraging stars to play more.

antipoopsuperstar

14 | 3 hours ago

Where does it end though. If you can trust the voters to make a judgement at 64, why not at 61? Why not 58? Etc. At more than 15 games you’re missing 20% of the season. That’s a big number.

I’m 100% behind the rule.

nowhathappenedwas | NBA

15 | 3 hours ago

If you can trust the voters to make a judgement at 64, why not at 61? Why not 58?

Correct. We’ve always trusted the voters to properly weigh playing time, and they’ve always been able to do it.

lethalizered | Thunder

8 | 3 hours ago

and they’ve always been able to do it.

Eeeh, always feels a bit wrong here. Usually is a better word. I don’t think Bron getting all NBA with 55 games played and 45 games played(72 game season) were good decisions by the voters.

Same for Curry getting it with 51 games played.

I get All Stars being legacy selections to a degree, but All NBA shouldn’t be that.

BlueGrovyle | Hawks

4 | 3 hours ago

Do you have more examples? I’m of the opinion that the disqualifications will matter more than the “legacy selections” and I think the rule’s being this strict is already causing it to trend in that direction.

lethalizered | Thunder

7 | 3 hours ago

Yao has a couple egregious ones, the most famous one being his 2007 selection.

Man made All NBA 2nd team with 48 games played lol

I get that these are the “exceptions” and not the norm, but I still like the rule in spirit.

Maybe make it 62 games just to make it a set 75%, but I really don’t want players to get players with less than 60 games played to get All NBA nods, it’s a good way to eliminate those selections.

wormhole222 | Heat

1 | 2 hours ago

There are also examples that were really good and now can’t happen. Steph had a couple seasons of being over 50 and under 65 games at an MVP level and made 2nd or 3rd team. I think that’s a good thing.

lethalizered | Thunder

2 | 2 hours ago

Which seasons were those? 20-21 was a shortened one so he’d be eligible anyway.

21-22 he was one game short, I’m sure he could have played in a single more game to qualify for a selection lol

BlueGrovyle | Hawks

1 | 2 hours ago

I too like the rule in spirit, but I still think it’s a net negative in practice. In my opinion, the biggest positive that the rule in and of itself can make is reversing the load management culture, but I think it’s not great that stars are less likely to be able to sit games at the end of the season without risk, and it’s even worse that injury-prone superstars who are incentivized to prioritize being in shape for the playoffs may go out there and risk their health in an otherwise insignificant regular season game just to reach the quota.

If Mikal weren’t the only modern player available for all 82 games every season, I might feel different about the matter, but what can’t be argued is that players have to have fairly substantial luck not to get injured in the modern NBA.

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

1 | 3 minutes ago

I disagree those were good decisions. Curry was better than the next guy up who played more in 2018. Same with Lebron in 2021, etc. It’s a greater injustice to rob them of those all-NBA season and give them to Ben Simmons or Vucevic or someone who played more. (Those are literally the next best qualifying options mind you in 2018 and 2021

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 2 hours ago

Exactly.

That was literally never an issue. Nobody was winning with 40 games played. Now, we are being pedantic for no reason and a guy can average literally a 50 pt triple double and get 0 votes if he plays 64 games.

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

4 | 3 hours ago

You can trust voters at any amount of games played. We already leave the voters to decide on defense, playmaking, scoring, winning impact, etc, no reason availability isn’t just another category to consider when voting. If you distrust the voters this much, the next best move is to make All-NBA just a set of statistical requirements

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 16 minutes ago

Good point.

Why stop at games played? Why not make it so that only players on playoff teams are eligible? Heck, why not only 50 win teams.

The rule is stupid.

Krillin113 | 76ers

3 | 3 hours ago

That’s exactly the point. If someone who played 55 was more valuable than someone who played 70 he must’ve been that much better.

If a flu goes through the league, there’s a real shot someone like Jaylen brown wins mvp.

No-Owl-6246 | Lakers

2 | 3 hours ago

If they played 15 fewer games, are they more valuable though? A person averaging 30 pts a game over 55 games provided 1,650 points for their team. A person averaging 25 points per game over 70 games provided 1,750 points. While on a per game basis the first person was more impactful, looking at the season as a whole they provided less overall value.

HotChipEater | Warriors

0 | 2 hours ago

If the 5 ppg was the difference between winning and losing those games then the 1st person was more valuable to winning.

You can construct as complicated a hypothetical as you want but that’s not the point. The point is that the voters weigh every other criteria according to their expertise and opinion, then their votes are combined to get an aggregate. The league decided to make a fully arbitrary cutoff for exactly one criteria.

The idea that this improves the award selection process, when it wasn’t even meant to do so in the first place, makes zero sense. Everyone knew at the time there is just as much of a difference between two players who play 81 and 80 games as there is between two players who play 65 and 64 games.

It was explicitly sold as an anti-resting measure. The calculus was that arbitrarily affecting award selection was worth it in order to combat stars resting.

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | an hour ago

All it does is producing whacky all nba teams. Jokic, Wemby and Shai are all a mild ankle sprain away from being completely ineligible and we get Julius Randle in All NBA teams.

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 12 minutes ago

We literally didn’t have a cutoff for years and nobody had an issue with it.

igot2pair | Supersonics

5 | 2 hours ago

And encourage them to play injured too

laxdefender23 | Wizards

1 | 2 hours ago

I would argue the rule was pushed because sportswriters hated Embiid and loved Jokic.

The toxicity of those MVP debates brought us here

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | an hour ago

Absolutely nobody could provide a counterargument for the first part you said. 64 games of Jokic are more valuable than 65 games of idk, Sengun.

It’s that simple. The rule is stupid.

froyoboyz | Raptors

1 | 3 hours ago

it’s gonna be a problem when more and more stars are disqualified from winning awards cause they missed so many games. we’re already seeing it happen

Zigxy | Pacers Bandwagon

4 | 2 hours ago

65 cutoff is okayish for MVP

65 is too strict for all-NBA teams.

spazz720 | Jazz

1 | 40 minutes ago

I think it should be amended due to real injuries as compared to game management.

high_as_an_eagle

1 | 29 minutes ago

I like the rule but I’d be OK if they moved it to 60 games played instead of 65.

At least if you play 60 out of 82 that’s not too much to ask.

I wonder what past winners of MVP, All NBA, DPOY, etc had as far as games played going back to the 80’s, 90’s all the way to today. I’d be surprised if they were under 60 on average.

twovles31

9 | 4 hours ago

The cost of Chet’s max goes the higher with the All NBA selection. I wonder if there is any other players that will get a nice boost in contract, because of getting into the All NBA this year.

lighterjobs | NBA

15 | 4 hours ago

Chet doesn’t have escalators in his contract

ThinReply2047

-1 | 4 hours ago

How do you see this? I went looking but didn’t find if they had incentives or not

twovles31

-1 | 4 hours ago

Oh odd, I remember JDub did would have thought they had the same.

lighterjobs | NBA

18 | 4 hours ago

Jdub did and didn’t qualify, Chet qualifies but no escalators lol. Presti strikes again

Fearless_Call_4964

3 | 3 hours ago

I guess the risk of Chet winning DPOY was a big factor in this for Presti. Wemby missing 20 games was definitely on the table, and this elevates Chet to a big favorite to win it.

TwoLegitShiznit

-4 | 3 hours ago

If that’s that true his agent should be fired on the spot

BrotherSeamus | Thunder

4 | 3 hours ago

Maybe they have higher aspirations

TwoLegitShiznit

2 | 3 hours ago

aspirations

Ahh I get you. So he’s being paid under the table.

antipoopsuperstar

9 | 3 hours ago

If you miss more than 20% of the season you shouldn’t be eligible IMO. Rule is working as intended.

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

-7 | 3 hours ago

But when you miss %19 you’re eligible. Makes a lot of sense…

DameTime710

14 | 3 hours ago

If you get nine rebounds do you get a triple double? No it’s because there’s a cut off point it’s the only way it actually make sense in my mind! If you shoot a shot from 23 ft 9 inches it’s a three 23 8in it isn’t there has to be cutoff

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

-1 | 2 hours ago

You don’t need a cutoff though. There was literally no cutoff for most of NBA history

_LeBroentgen | Spurs

1 | 12 minutes ago

You need a cutoff when load management is arguably the biggest problem with your league and stars are sitting out nationally televised games.

DameTime710

0 | an hour ago

Yeah I guess your statement is more about whether the rule is needed Mine is about the rule itself

I mean I agree it’s not a needed rule

IlliterateDumbNerd | Spurs

7 | 3 hours ago

You gotta set a threshold somewhere, and 20% is a nice round even number so why not.

WanAjin | Lakers

-1 | 2 hours ago

You kinda don’t, unless you don’t trust the voters lol. I thought the 65-game rule would be okay when it was introduced, but this season in particular has shown that maybe it’s not that great, actually.

We should be able to trust that voters can think critically about player impact despite missing more games in comparison to someone else.

Jarxzz | United States

-2 | 2 hours ago

You actually don’t have to though

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

-4 | 2 hours ago

You don’t have to set a number anywhere actually. There was no number for all of NBA history

BBallHunter | Thunder

0 | 2 hours ago

That’s exactly the problem. Its being pedantic for the sake of it.

nevermindthatyoudope | Celtics

5 | 4 hours ago

Im waiting for next year or the year after when the only eligible players are bench dudes playing 18 minutes over the course of 79 games or some shit.

thejuan | Spurs

2 | 2 hours ago

You gotta hit 20 minutes per game to qualify

DrDosMucho | Lakers

4 | 3 hours ago

If you don’t partake in 80% of the season you don’t deserve awards it’s that simple. Imagine not showing up for work for 20% of your shifts and then expecting an award. Just doesn’t make sense. It sucks to get injured and it’s not your fault, but you didn’t show up to 20% of games played. Whatever the reason is that’s a good amount of time to miss to not be considered. From what I have read, it is having the exact effect that the league wanted, less load management and more stars playing in more games. Idk why fans are so concerned with a players individual awards when the product on the actual floor is what matters and when stars aren’t playing the product is worse.

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

6 | 3 hours ago

I love this rule, even if it ends up hurting players I enjoy watching.

As they say, your best ability is your availability. And if Shai goes down, god forbid, then he wouldn’t be considered the MVP.

GoldBlueSkyLight | Warriors

-4 | 3 hours ago

Actual ability is the best ability, not availability.

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

2 | an hour ago

So should we just give the award to Jokic or SGA or Wemby every offseason and not bother playing the games?

Because they are outrageously talented. But impact on wins, losses, and the season as a whole has to matter.

BBallHunter | Thunder

2 | an hour ago

No but we should not make the difference between 64 games and 65 suddenly uber important. You are missing the point of the criticism.

JaderMcDanersStan | Timberwolves

1 | 11 minutes ago

Isn’t there an option to petition if the player is very close?

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 7 minutes ago

Then what’s the point of having a cutoff if you can just get a petition.

BBallHunter | Thunder

-2 | an hour ago

You can’t possibly approve of Shai being completely ineligible if he ends up playing 64 games. That’s being pedantic for the sake of it.

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

1 | an hour ago

I have this weird thing where I’m consistent whether it hurts my own feelings or not.

BBallHunter | Thunder

0 | an hour ago

And I have this weird thing where I am not being uber pedantic and make a player completely ineligible because of 1 or 2 games.

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

2 | an hour ago

But it wouldn’t be 1 or 2 games. It would be 18+ games missed if he ended at 64 or fewer. Missing roughly 20% of the season is a good metric for disqualification, but it’s not going to happen anyways so idk why we’re fighting.

BBallHunter | Thunder

0 | an hour ago

No, I mean the difference between 65 games and 64 is literally one game.

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

1 | 31 minutes ago

I wouldn’t be opposed if they raised the bar to “a star can only miss 15 games” if we’re gonna do this lol.

15 games is a heck of a lot. It sure still is hundreds of dollars for the family who bought tickets before the stars got hurt.

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 29 minutes ago

But you do get what I mean now?

MegaNando

1 | 20 minutes ago

I mean you could say the same about a lot of things that’s have a quantitative cutoff.

The age of consent is on 18 but there’s not a meaningful difference between 17 and 18. We have to cut it off somewhere. Otherwise if we make it 64 games people are gonna say 63 vs 64 games isn’t that much let’s allow 63.

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | 15 minutes ago

We literally didn’t have a cutoff for years and we had no issues.

Jstaud4 | Bulls

-7 | 3 hours ago

No actually the best ability is ability. 64 games of Shai is way more valuable 75 games of Cade. It’s an extremely stupid rule and completely unnecessary since games played was already considered by the voters.

Ok-Topic-6095 | Spurs

-1 | 3 hours ago

I agree. If Shai goes down to an ankle sprain the rest of the season, he still led his team to an AT WORST second seed in the West

CycloneofSparta | Thunder

2 | an hour ago

If he goes down now then he wouldn’t have been a factor in a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the season, which is the essence of the rule. In fact, if the Thunder (my team, mind you) get a second seed with SGA missing wide swathes of the season, then it would actually invalidate his claim as MVP would it not?

MVP awards are always debated as “best player” vs. “most valuable” player. It seems the league is leaning towards the latter definition.

BBallHunter | Thunder

-1 | an hour ago

How is this downvoted? Because it’s Shai? The core of your argument is absolutely correct. The example doesn’t matter.

64 games of tier 1 superstars are more valuable than 65 games of much worse players. It’s really simple. The rule is just unnecessary.

CommunityGlittering2

1 | an hour ago

but they are not much worse

BBallHunter | Thunder

1 | an hour ago

Shai and Cade? Doesn’t matter, change the players however you like.

mr__hunt

3 | 33 minutes ago

The Embiid rule isn’t so fun when it impacts other players, huh?

Jack_The_Sparrow_ | Warriors

2 | 4 hours ago

Catastrophic

richmuhlach

2 | 3 hours ago

Adam Silver: “the best ability is availability”

rocket_beer | Celtics

2 | 2 hours ago

Payton Pritchard MVP, confirmed

heat_fan_ | Raptors

1 | 4 hours ago

Damn the 65 game rule

BrotherSeamus | Thunder

1 | 3 hours ago

Didn’t Edwards also play low minutes in one of his games? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Also this rule is great for MVP, DPOY, ROY, etc but it should be relaxed for second or third team all-NBA.

yarn_install | Timberwolves

2 | 3 hours ago

He played 3 mins and got injured in that first stretch of games he missed at the beginning of the season

JaderMcDanersStan | Timberwolves

1 | 10 minutes ago

Yeah he played 3 or 5 minutes in the first home game. It fucked up his stats averages

bubbles2255 | Kings

1 | 3 hours ago

I look forward to Max Raynaud’s 3rd team All NBA nod, due to all the injuries.

DukeOfStuff_ | Timberwolves

1 | 3 hours ago

I think he’ll make it

Chinbie

1 | 2 hours ago

Thats why if all the mentioned names by OP has able to secure those games required… they shall sit the remaining games so that they can have some rest going to the playoffs… (especially if the games has no bearing at all already)

02846pwiry

1 | 2 hours ago

Clint Capela MVP

No_Caramel_1782 | Wizards

1 | an hour ago

I like the 65 game threshold. Playing the game has to matter.

Medical_Sample2738

2 | an hour ago

I would lower it to 60 but agreed.

purplenyellowrose909 | Timberwolves

1 | an hour ago

Would this help the Timberwolves cap long term if he missed the awards? I’m not fully versed in the CBA contract max nonsense

EggsAndRice7171 | Pacers

1 | 31 minutes ago

He’s 4 time all nba already so I’m pretty sure he’s already qualified to get the most money possible

FCHWPO9 | Celtics

1 | 43 minutes ago

The math in this post should qualify for the r/nbadiscussion sub

Guilty-Drawer-808 | Italy

1 | 15 minutes ago

Look on the bright side. The time off he gets, he can bond with all of his kids. Send da video.

CantaloupeCamper | Timberwolves

1 | 11 minutes ago

I don’t really mind these rules…

Bonesawisready5 | Spurs

1 | 11 minutes ago

ANT clearly got hurt playing with Barack, THANKS OBAMA!

Minute_Elephant_3218

1 | 10 minutes ago

All bc people wanted to punish Kawhi and Embiid

vladimir_pimpin | Nuggets

0 | 3 hours ago

I really don’t mind the game requirement, but I do think it should be lowered to 60. Feel like there’s a bunch of dudes who don’t load manage at all who had one mid tier injury and are fighting ineligibility.

PlasticSprinkles4677

0 | 2 hours ago

It’s time for the real stars to be disqualified so that their peers get that huge bag, then the new stars do the same next year. Biggy bag for everyone

yosisoy | NBA

0 | an hour ago

What even is this post?

Happy_Peak_7818

-1 | 3 hours ago

In a sane world, with modern NBA egos, I’d say no way there exists a player conspiracy to forgo the individual award and subtly slide enough people into the “ineligible to receive post season award” bucket so that either the rule itself is DQ’d or the regular season total games must be adjusted.

But this is 2026, and decidedly not a sane year. Let’s just expect players to fill that ineligible list so the All NBA 1st team will have to be players Adam Silver picks from his home planet of SuckTron.

TrojanTheGreat | Raptors

-3 | 4 hours ago

anyone have a full list of qualifiers? will cade win mvp? Why am I getting downvoted for a question? Reddit moment

fab_frog_disco

7 | 4 hours ago

No. SGA is likely to qualify. And even if he doesn’t wemby is above him right now as is jokic (though he can only miss one more game)

TrojanTheGreat | Raptors

2 | 3 hours ago

Ohhhh thank you for answering instead of downvoting. I thought they were eliminated atp

persephonepeete

-5 | 3 hours ago

this rule is dumb

Thealbumisjustdrums | Heat

-1 | 3 hours ago

As is pretty much every change Adam “the idiot” Silver has implemented.

incredibleamadeuscho | Lakers

-19 | 4 hours ago

Arguably the best American player right now since Tatum is still not 100%.

That’s Cade and Jaylen Brown

PeopleusetocallmeBub

13 | 3 hours ago

I take Ant over Brown any day of the damn week

SnooChipmunks469 | Knicks

6 | 3 hours ago

I would take Ant over Cade on those days too.

incredibleamadeuscho | Lakers

-7 | 3 hours ago

If we are talking about this season’s performance, both Cade and Brown have been better.

neonbresson | West

1 | 3 hours ago

Right now doesn’t mean just this season you know that right?

incredibleamadeuscho | Lakers

2 | 3 hours ago

I’d argue adding the bit about Tatum implies this season

neonbresson | West

9 | 3 hours ago

Do a redraft and no one is taking Brown over Anthony Edwards

incredibleamadeuscho | Lakers

-1 | 3 hours ago

Both are above him in the MVP race. Like what are we talking about?

KarrotMovies | LAL

3 | 3 hours ago

Ant clears both

QuietMonsoon3314

3 | 3 hours ago

Cade??? Dude is going to shoot like 30% in the playoffs

Anthony Edwards is the latest Star who is in danger of being disqualified for All NBA teams