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

Dbreiden83080 said:
That’s not something anybody should be worried about. Keep him healthy, keep developing the young guys and get it rolling. Hopefully if he’s healthy the entire second half of the season, he really finds a rhythm.
Click to expand...
I'm sure going forward Victor will be very worried about it as if he never plays 65 games he won't ever be eligible for a supermax :st-lol:

Going to be crazy next year when even when he hurts they run him out there for 2 minutes just so it counts as a game played :st-lol:

Shocked more players haven't done that yet tbh
 
Sugus said:
THIS is the issue with the rule: the arbitration.

Your point is valid in a vacuum, but doesn't reflect the reality of the rule at all: with 82 games in a season, the 65-game cutoff represents 79.27% of games to be played -- neither "never playing" nor "a majority of the games", both of which would be much more sensible qualifiers.

As it stands, it's ridiculously constrictive, not to mention having no flexibility for edge cases (if Jokic/SGA suffered an off-season injury and came into the season late, already missing the cut-off, but then hard-carried the team into a top seed, why wouldn't they still be the MVP? etc etc).

In a "sicko" way, I'm ""glad"" Jokic will miss extended time with his injury - there definitely has to be a "chips falling" moment where multiple top candidates are robbed in plain sight so that the NBA is pressured into changing the rule. Make it 41 games and it's golden, tbh
Click to expand...
No matter where the cutoff gets placed, be it 65 games or 50 games or 41 games X% of games, it's going to be arbitrary. What makes the "golden" 41 games you suggest any less arbitrary or more meaningful than 65 games?

My hunch is that if you go back in time and look at all the award winners previous to this rule being put in place, they all probably played closer to 80%+ of games, which is how probably they came up with it in the first place (I didn't check any of this, like I said, it's just a hunch).

Someone mentioned that this is to serve another master - the TV networks... and, yeah... of course it is. This is still a business, and the league did some soul searching and discovered that load management was hurting their business. This shouldn't be surprising or controversial to anyone. And we should all be clear, the rule isn't about making sure that award winners proved their worthiness by playing some arbitrary number of games... the rule is in place because the league wants it players to play, and this creates incentives (especially with super max contracts being tied to awards) for player to play.

There is a good argument for the moral hazard this creates in pushing players to play before they are ready. That needs to be addressed, for certain. However, I think people are missing the point of why this rule exists. They're upset because their favorite player won't qualify and they view 65 games as arbitrary, but it's because they are looking at things through a different lens of what the league is trying to accomplish with the rule. This is a profit optimization rule, not a "make sure the award truly goes to the most worthy person" rule.
 
poopbox said:
I'm sure going forward Victor will be very worried about it as if he never plays 65 games he won't ever be eligible for a supermax :st-lol:

Going to be crazy next year when even when he hurts they run him out there for 2 minutes just so it counts as a game played :st-lol:

Shocked more players haven't done that yet tbh
Click to expand...
The league saw it coming, so there is a 20 minute minimum for the game to count, with a couple of allowed exception games (Wemby has used one in the game he played 17 minutes)
 
scott said:
The league saw it coming, so there is a 20 minute minimum for the game to count, with a couple of allowed exception games (Wemby has used one in the game he played 17 minutes)
Click to expand...
That was just a dumb move by Mitch burning an 'exception game' by mere 3 minutes ..Wemby could have strolled back and forth the court to fulfill the minutes limit..I really hope that doesn't end up costing him the award/all NBA though i think the odds are stacked against him anyway
 
spursistan said:
That was just a dumb move by Mitch burning an 'exception game' by mere 3 minutes ..Wemby could have strolled back and forth the court to fulfill the minutes limit..I really hope that doesn't end up costing him the award/all NBA though i think the odds are stacked against him anyway
Click to expand...
the two exception games must also fall between 15 and 20 minutes

nba is trying to remove that type of gamesmanship
 
Wemby means money to the NBA. Even in a way games, people pay to see him play.So as scott said, they aren't concerned with any awards status.
 
I still think it should be 70% of the games played (about 57 games played), and maybe even round that down to 55 games played to be eligible for awards. If you're that dominant and are able to play 70%~ of the games, you shouldn't be disallowed from award consideration.
 
Ice009 said:
I still think it should be 70% of the games played (about 57 games played), and maybe even round that down to 55 games played to be eligible for awards. If you're that dominant and are able to play 70%~ of the games, you shouldn't be disallowed from award consideration.
Click to expand...
It should be either 65 games or 2000 minutes.

Wemby is at 29.8mpg which would be 1937 minutes total over 65 games.

Jokic is at 34.6mpg and if he plays 65 games that's 2249 minutes. If you ask me, it's unfair that Jokic needs 65 games when his minutes per game are so high.

You can fit 10 more games of Wemby's 30mpg into Jokic's projected minutes.
 
I am very supportive of CLE in their W2 turnaround at our expense so much so that why not continue this trend tonight when the Cavs face DEN? Would help earn SA some breathing room in the standings in combo with a Spurs win tonight. When it rains, it pours for Nuggets: No Joker and no BDV. Spurs know how that feels, Centers, centers everywhere and not a big to start. Murray GTD with the ankle so Cleveland better feast.
 
It was mostly to prevent tanking n resting healthy players. If they can provide medical that should be excused
 
Love that NYK ATL matchup tonight. Someone has to lose.
 
If Obi Toppin is out for IND that would be a bit of a break for the Spurs
 
Well, if Devin is out for a month, Champ is playing for extra money on his new deal.
He's at 14ppg/7rpg and 40% from 3pt on 8 attempts in 12 games with more than 30 minutes played this season, he obviously plays better as a starter.

As for the Pacers, I haven't seen enough of them, but there must be something really wrong for that roster to be the worst team in the league.
I just hope scott's favorite, Huff, doesn't have a career night.



Uploaded an entire hour before the tip-off!
 
Not liking how this is setting up. Pacers have lost 10 in a row with an expected record 2 games better than their actual record, the opposite of the Spurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sugus
Game Thread Spurs (42-16) @ Nets (15-42) (Thu 02/26/26) [6:30 PM CST]
14 15 16
Replies
394
Views
6K
Biggems
Biggems
LeBowen
Game Thread Spurs (25-9) vs Trailblazers (15-20) (Sat 01/03/26) [7:00 PM CDT]
24 25 26
Replies
629
Views
9K
Dbreiden83080
Dbreiden83080
BatManu20
Game Thread Spurs (39-16) vs Kings (12-45) (Sat 02/21/26) [7:00 PM CST]
16 17 18
Replies
429
Views
7K
Sparco41
Sparco41
BatManu20
Game Thread Spurs (36-16) @ Lakers (32-19) (Tue 02/10/26) [9:30PM CST]
30 31 32
Replies
775
Views
11K
scott
scott
Sugus
Game Thread Spurs (43-16) @ Knicks (38-22) (Sun 03/01/26) [12:00 PM CST]
33 34 35
Replies
869
Views
9K
John B
John B
Back
Top