I think that I agree completely that I am sick of the complaining. Maybe there’s a world where mathematics can save the day. I think that it would be interesting to have vote totals get multiplied by a factor that is representative of total minutes played or games played.

This could add negative value to vote totals for players who miss major time or do not play as many minutes. In determining the total value of a player, availability is the best ability.

Likewise it could add to the resume of a player who plays well above the threshold of 65 games. If the guy who was a clear #2 MVP candidate played all 82 games, and the guy who was the #1 candidate only plays 65 then this system may make a lot sense. We would probably agree that the guy who played all 82 had games where he battled through and his stats suffered. But we vote on stats. So go ahead, vote on stats, but reward the available player somehow.

I want to open with no actual preference or opinion on the 65 game rule. However, offering the objective argument against “being soft as hell.” Is usually that the 82 regular season schedule is not actually healthy. Just because they can doesn’t mean its good for professional athletes.

You could look at it as the 82 game season is for money purposes (both for the NBA and for players remuneration).

Tl:dr counter arguement is that the NBA doesn’t need to be an ironman Hyrox comp. Less games might mean less injuries so when its actually game time (playoffs) it means something

We are extremely lucky to have ironman players on our team and if someone doesnt get an award they deserve because they are a few games off I would be bitching the same as everyone else. Us not bitching is because it doesnt affect us… yet.

the big problem is a hard cutoff line, The fact that a 65 games Jokic makes him a MVP contender, first team. And 64 games Jokic isn’t even third team. Anytime there’s a cutoff, whether it’s 65, 70, 62, 60, things like this will happen. And no matter where you set it, 1 game should not make someone going from a top 3 player in those season to not even a top 15 player this season.

I never understood the Cade exception. If you are injured, you are injured. Why does it matter what type of injury you have?

Idk man there should still be some consideration for players who had exceptional performance but only fell a few games shy of the cutoff. Their appeal can be denied and the cutoff upheld if the race for the individual award or All NBA team is fairly tight and the “replacement” player is reasonably comparable in terms of performance and impact. We get that load management abuse is a shitty shitty thing and needs to be mitigated. But without some form of leniency this could devolve into at least one of 2 things:

• The accolade could default to a player whose performance was significantly unremarkable in comparison just because they made the cutoff (a YT channel whose name escapes me parodied this idea not long back)

• More players who are desperate to meet the cutoff would pull a Grant Hill and play through pain to force the issue thereby aggravating their injury and making them more injury prone down the line. Then they’d never be able for any award at all going forward and then we’re back to where we starred with the load management thing.

The NBA could fix a lot of this by eliminating back to back games. It’s a LONG season!!! There is no reason for back to backs and the team on them usually loses if they are playing a “fresh” team. Just fix the schedules and it would substantially obviate the “load management” argument. I also agree with the poster who suggested implementing the “At least three games in a row missed” rule, because that would likely mean a real injury

I agree with all of this, but to go further, counting stats like points and assists should only matter as season totals. I think a player’s total points is way more impressive than their average per game, particularly when they miss a ton of games; the scoring title should definitely be who scored the most in the season.

I never understood the Cade exception. If you are injured, you are injured. Why does it matter what type of injury you have?

I’m always surprised at how many people care about this stuff in terms of like…who gives a shit if they get all nba? Does that make them more or less of a player in their eyes? Why do they need that validation?

Like if JT had a season where he had 63 games and wasn’t able to get awards, I wouldn’t care at all. I think I would only care if he was an MVP front runner, and that’s only barely.

1. Play the damn games if you’re missing 20% of the season and haven’t had any major injuries that’s ridiculous. Fans pay to see the players play. The amount of kids that go to see a player and gets disappointed because of load management is enough for me to think this rule needs to be in place alone. Pay $300 for one of these bums to say they’re too fuckin tired. Fuck you, play the game.

2. Why do we care about some guys awards? He’s still the same player, and it has no bearing on playoff success which is what actually matters.

I’m with you. I don’t mind the rule but probably wouldn’t have the 65 game cutoff if I was running it.

Agreed availability is the best ability, but voters should be able to discern that value without an arbitrary cutoff. As in, just let voters decide if someone playing 64 games was better than someone else playing 68 games.

I think the part that doesn’t bother me about it is that both Cunningham and Doncic played more minutes than Wemby despite playing less games. So when they were playing they weren’t doing short stints for appearance numbers or anything, they were both carrying the load

Those other players need the individual awards bc their team isnt winning the ONLY award that matters, The Larry.