Game Thread Spurs (24-9) @ Pacers (6-28) (Fri 01/02/26) [6:00 PM CDT]

BatManu20 said:
After this one, Wemby can only miss 4 more games now before he's ineligible for DPOY and All-NBA Teams. With 49 games left in the season, it's not looking good tbh.
Click to expand...
At this point we're gonna have to accept that unless the NBA lowers the minimum game limit for seasonal awards Wemby will prolly never win any tbh.
 
BatManu20 said:
After this one, Wemby can only miss 4 more games now before he's ineligible for DPOY and All-NBA Teams. With 49 games left in the season, it's not looking good tbh.
Click to expand...
Basically another minor bruise/bump and he's out of it. Odds are extremely low he makes the cut,tbh. Need to see him play 30 straight games before i can change my mind here. Wemby said he's aware where he sits in that regard (65-game threshold), so it will be interesting to see how hard he is gonna push for it..
 
Robz4000 said:
At this point we're gonna have to accept that unless the NBA lowers the minimum game limit for seasonal awards Wemby will prolly never win any tbh.
Click to expand...
Think this rule will get changed after this season when both Jokic and Wemby miss out on rightful MVP/DPOY awards. Will/should get lowered to 58 games same as 'scoring title' threshold..
 
Forget the 65 game bs tbh..
We have a player who, if we are really lucky, will play about 50 games per season and if we are really really lucky- those 50 games will be spaced out to include wemby saving himself for the playoffs…

So 15-20 playoff games
30 or so regular season games…

Hope im wrong.
 
cediskace said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 65 game mark rule is working exactly as intended so why would we be critical of it? If you can't play that amount of games you should not be considered for end of season awards. It's not an award of who is the best defensive player, it is of who had the most defensive impact over the course of hte current season which means you actually need to play in a certain amount of games. And it makes even more sense if you're a team who's payroll depends on who wins those awards. Its a good rule.
 
Probably the Spurs and the Rockets will compete for the second seed moving forward

Nuggets saddled with injuries, and i hope the Lakers obtain more losses
 
Paramore said:
Precisely

Admiration and respect to the Iron Men of the League

(which includes Barnes, hehe)
Click to expand...
Sure, plenty of respect for them but it's easier to be an iron man when you're a role player or play mostly one side of the court.

His singular physique is always pointed first but Wemby is also one of the rare players playing 100% on both sides all while being the target of the opponents who are trying to tire him up as a strategy, which is an insane level of energy spent and a higher risk of injury.

Imagine the same saying towards Giannis for ex, the guy gives his body. every game, of course he's meant to miss some.

Lastly, it's also unfair to compare with past eras that were maybe more physical in the paint but were more "static" with a lot less pace and runs that can lead to long term injuries.

This 65 games rules should be cancelled, mostly for AllNBA selections and DPOY that should reflect the real best players of the season, not the ones that managed to play 65 games. For the MVP, as Lowe pointed out in his pod, if 2 players are in competition for the prize, the edge would be given to the one that played the most by common sense anyway.
 
Kawhi is the last vestige of load management. It really doesn't exist anymore players are just getting hurt more because of the pace of the game. Maybe they should change some of the rules they did to advantage offenses.
 
Victor Wembanyama's Wikipedia page in 2050:

During his 17-season career, Victor Wembanyama only played two full seasons. Neither of those seasons led to a title. The San Antonio Spurs player only played in 45% of possible games[53] throughout his entire career. Unanimously considered the best interior defender in the league [citation needed], Victor Wembanyama was never eligible for individual end-of-season awards: he never won MVP or Defensive Player of the Year. The Big Four, composed for eight seasons of a core group of star players (Victor Wembanyama, Stephon Castle, Dylan Harper, and Limguo Guolo the Third), played only 27% of the season's games during that period[54]. Despite this, Victor Wembanyama won four Finals MVP titles at the end of his career (to which must be added an identical title for each of the other three members of the Big Four). On the day Stephon Castle won his first regular season MVP title, Victor Wembanyama said, "I'm glad I'm not eligible. Stephon is the first American player to receive this title in a long time."[55] Of the 14 times the Spurs made the playoffs during his career, Victor Wembanyama played in 84% of the post-season games and missed only one final game in the title year of 2032[56].
Click to expand...
 
MannyIG said:
The 65 game mark rule is working exactly as intended so why would we be critical of it? If you can't play that amount of games you should not be considered for end of season awards. It's not an award of who is the best defensive player, it is of who had the most defensive impact over the course of hte current season which means you actually need to play in a certain amount of games. And it makes even more sense if you're a team who's payroll depends on who wins those awards. Its a good rule.
Click to expand...
so, if you played 64 games, your impact is automatically declared insufficient but if you played just one more game (or two or three, i believe there could be some tolerance), then it magically becomes enough ? Bullshit.....

These season awards are basically popularity contests among reporters. If you make a 65 games rule, then why not force the reporters to elect only players playing for a team with a certain amount of victories ? Players who reached a specific treshold in some statistical categories ?

No, if you let the reporters make their choice, let them do it taking into account the number of games played like they do with others criterias without making a rule.

Don't try to argue this rule has been invented for any other reason than to please the TV that are the true treasurers of the league. But from a sporting point of view, that doesn't make sense and there is even a risk that it could endanger some players' health and diminish the credibility of a default winner.
 
Last edited:
cediskace said:
so, if you played 64 games, your impact is automatically declared insufficient but if you played just one more game (or two or three, i believe there could be some tolerance), then it magically becomes enough ? Bullshit.....

These season awards are basically popularity contests among reporters. If you make a 65 games rule, then why not force the reporters to elect only players playing for a team with a certain amount of victories ? Players who reached a specific treshold in some statistical categories ?

No, if you let the reporters make their choice, let them do it taking into account the number of games played like they do with others criterias without making a rule.

Don't try to argue this rule has been invented for any other reason than to please the TV that are the true treasurers of the league. But from a sporting point of view, that doesn't make sense and there is even a risk that it could endanger some players' health and diminish the credibility of a default winner.
Click to expand...
the rule makes sense. it doesn't matter how good or impactful you are at something if you never play. i don't see how someone could claim to be the league's most valuable player if they can't play a majority of games; there's no value in sitting on the bench.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top