It’s so dumb because then you have guys just doing enough to hit the requirement (Wemby/Jokic) and then guys having freak injuries. Even those two had legitimate injuries earlier in the year and then these unfortunate injuries at the end. All the candidates had legitimate reasons to not play the total amount of games. Just trust your damn voters to make sense of it.
They should fix the rule going forward. Maybe X games or a minutes threshold. I get why Ant didn’t get the exception compared to the other two but still sucks
I honestly think they looked at somebody like Victor who played 3-400 less minutes than both of those guys and said well shit. Victor is probably gonna finish 2nd or 3rd for mvp and unanimously win DPOY Not his fault but idk wtf they’re gonna do going forward
This is gonna seem like Max rage-baiting, but I do truly believe it, I think after you win an MVP, caring about winning more is a bit lame.
I don’t like the 65 game rule because of the effect it can have on guy’s getting paid. Missing out on All-NBA because you played 63 games instead of 65 and now you don’t get that massive bump in your next max deal.
The 65 game rule is basically telling your voters you don't trust them to use critical thinking and take the number of games each guy actually played into account.
I agree with this but fold it more into “nba contracts/cap is stupid” then the 65 game rule itself being dumb.
I think I've been pretty clear on what I think about the MVP discussion, that it's more about how you define what MVP means, and that it's probably better if the NBA adopted a Player of the Year or OPOY award to go alongside it. I don't actually give a shit whether Jokic wins another MVP, and neither does the man himself. I will not lose any sleep at night if he does not win another one.
Didn't he just play a 65th game when the rest of the starters sat so he could ensure he qualifies? I mean regardless, it's not a big deal. I just feel like winning your first is a big deal and after that just go ball and let the awards happen. First one I get involves a bit more campaigning and it being "your" year.
I think that probably had more to do with All-NBA stuff than MVP, since that shit is tied to contracts/incentives, which you and I already had the conversation about why I think the 65-game rule is bullshit lol
Yeah but I think context matters too though. For one, he barely hit the 65 game mark. But even then minutes in game, nobody on the Spurs even averaged more than 31 minutes a game. So the entire teams minutes were managed well and still had the 2nd best record in the league. Now if he was putting up those same averages but the team was at the bottom of the league then yeah I’d say he didn’t deserve consideration. At the beginning of the year there was some streak or something where SGA didn’t play in any 4th quarters. Had that had held up, would you say SGA wouldn’t deserve the MVP because of his minutes? I think record factors in