i don't get how this 65 games mark hasn't be more criticized.... firstly it's just stupid because these awards are just a bunch of reporters giving their opinions and voting about a player.... if you trust them to make their choice, why not trust them to take in account the number of games played ? i don't think there are alot of exemples of criticized winner of these awards because of the number of games they played during the season....
secondly, i think Wemby is the worst case, the worst thing that could have happened to this rule.
He is by far the best defensive player. he was last year. and maybe even his first year, but you can understand that the team record prevented him to win it.
He is so dominant of this end and he is such the obvious winner that he makes the award looks bad without his name on it and he kind of takes away the merit and the recognition to the actual winner if he doesn't reach the 65 games mark.
This winner, like last year, would not be the defensive player of the year for anyone. He would just be the defensive player of the year that played at least 65 games.
and to make it worse, it appears now that this stupid threshold is encouraging players like Victor to maybe take unreasonable risks with their health in order to meet the criteria. What scandal would it be if a major player injures himself badly taking that kind of risk in order to meet this stupid 65 games mark ?
Stupid idea, really....... a player missing too many games would have yet been, rightfully, penalized by the voters, it was enough.
