Cade Cunningham's 65-Game Nightmare Exposes NBA's Award Folly
The NBA’s 65-game rule is a mess, and the National Basketball Players Association finally had enough. They're pushing for changes, and frankly, it's about time. The current setup, designed to prevent load management, is punishing players like Cade Cunningham for things completely out of their control. Cunningham played 62 games this season for the Pistons. Three games shy. He put up 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds a night. All career highs. But because he missed three more games than the magic number, he’s ineligible for any end-of-season awards. That’s absurd.
The Flawed Logic of 65
Look, the league brought in this rule to ensure star players were actually on the court. Fans pay good money to see guys like LeBron James or Nikola Jokic. Nobody disputes that. But the rule's implementation is clumsy. Cunningham missed time due to a knee injury in late January, sitting out a few games. He wasn’t load managing; he was recovering. The Pistons, a team that finished 14-68, weren't exactly preserving him for a deep playoff run. They were trying to get him healthy. And now, he can't even be considered for an All-NBA spot or Most Improved Player, despite a clear leap in his production from his 2022-23 season where he only played 12 games.
Thing is, the NBPA isn't asking to scrap the rule entirely. They're suggesting amendments. Maybe a stipulation for injuries, or a certain number of games played before a specific date. Or perhaps, and this is my hot take, they should just let the voters decide. We trust them to pick the best players; why can't they factor in context for games played? Pascal Siakam played 67 games, averaging 21.7 points and 6.2 rebounds. He's eligible. Cunningham, three games less, not eligible. The difference is negligible.
Who's Really Getting Hurt?
It's not just Cunningham. Joel Embiid won MVP last season after playing 66 games. This year, he played 39 games due to a meniscus injury. Clearly, he's out of the running for MVP, and rightly so. But what about a player who misses 10-12 games due to a freak ankle sprain early in the season? Say, someone like Donovan Mitchell, who only played 55 games this year but still averaged 26.6 points for the Cavaliers. He's ineligible for All-NBA, even if he was clearly one of the best guards in the league when healthy.
The current system creates a weird incentive structure. Players might push through minor injuries just to hit the 65-game mark, potentially exacerbating issues down the line. We saw something similar with Kristaps Porzingis earlier in his career, constantly battling injuries. The league should be prioritizing player health, not inadvertently encouraging them to play hurt for award eligibility. The NBPA's proposal isn't about letting stars coast; it's about fairness. They want to protect players from being penalized for unavoidable circumstances.
A Simple Fix for Future Seasons
The solution isn't complicated. The league and the players union need to sit down and hammer out a more nuanced approach. Maybe a sliding scale for games missed due to documented injuries, or a lower threshold for players on non-playoff teams. Or, and this is the simplest option, just allow voters to use their judgment. If a player clearly had an All-NBA caliber season but missed 10 games due to a broken hand, let the voters decide if that’s enough to disqualify them. The current blanket rule is too rigid. For instance, if Shai Gilgeous-Alexander had played 64 games this year instead of 75, would his 30.1 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 6.2 assists per game suddenly be less impressive? Absolutely not.
The NBPA is right to push this. The 65-game rule, in its current form, is a well-intentioned policy with some seriously flawed outcomes. Expect the league to make some significant adjustments to this rule before the 2024-25 season tips off.