Is the NBA’s 65-Game Rule Rewriting History—And Not in a Good Way?
By Derek Olson, DFP Columnist • March 3, 2026
Imagine a future where NBA history is shaped not by dominance on the court, but by a player’s ability to stay healthy. That future is closer than you think, thanks to the NBA’s 65-game rule. But here’s where it gets controversial: Cade Cunningham, a standout player for the Detroit Pistons, is a strong contender for the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award this season—not necessarily because he’s the most dominant, but because he’s one of the few stars who’ve managed to stay on the court. Let’s dive into why this rule might be doing more harm than good.
Cunningham’s case is compelling. He leads the league in total assists, ranks fifth in Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), and eighth in win shares. His Pistons are defying expectations, sitting atop the Eastern Conference. Yet, when compared to powerhouses like Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Nikola Jokić, or Victor Wembanyama, Cunningham’s impact doesn’t quite measure up. So, why is he in the MVP conversation? Enter the 2023 NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement, which limits end-of-season awards to players who’ve logged 20 or more minutes in at least 63 games. Miss more than 17 games, and you’re out of contention.
And this is the part most people miss: This rule was designed to curb load management—the practice of star players sitting out games to rest. While it’s true that players like Kawhi Leonard are resting less, the rule is inadvertently punishing the league’s best. Jokić, Wembanyama, and Gilgeous-Alexander are now forced to choose between resting for the playoffs or risking injury to chase awards, recognition, and contract bonuses. Meanwhile, legends like Giannis Antetokounmpo, Stephen Curry, and LeBron James have already been disqualified this season. Yes, you read that right—LeBron James won’t make an All-NBA team for the first time since his rookie year in 2004.
One season off an All-NBA team might seem trivial for a player of James’ caliber, but these accolades define a player’s legacy long after retirement. Take Shaquille O’Neal in the 1996-1997 season: Despite missing 31 games due to knee injuries, he averaged 26.2 points and 12.5 rebounds per game, earning a spot on the All-NBA Third Team. O’Neal’s dominance was recognized because the focus was on his impact, not just his availability. From 1995-96 to 1998-99, he never played more than 60 games in a season yet made an All-NBA team every year. His legacy as one of the greatest centers ever was cemented by these honors, not by a strict game count.
Applying the 65-game rule to the MVP award is even more problematic. Historically, only two MVPs have played fewer than 65 games in a non-lockout season. Bill Walton in 1977-1978 is a prime example. He led the Portland Trail Blazers to a 50-10 record before a season-ending injury with 22 games left. The Blazers went 8-14 without him, yet Walton’s MVP award recognized his unparalleled impact. Under today’s rule, his dominance would’ve been overlooked.
Fast-forward to this season: Jokić and Gilgeous-Alexander are head and shoulders above the rest in win shares, player efficiency rating, and VORP. If either falls short of the 65-game mark, their value goes unrecognized. If Cunningham wins solely because he’s the healthiest option, future fans might question whether health—not greatness—was the deciding factor.
Here’s the real dilemma: The NBA’s grueling 82-game schedule, combined with the increasing athleticism of the game, is leading to more injuries among star players. Last season, Jayson Tatum and Tyrese Haliburton suffered season-ending Achilles tears in the playoffs—a stark reminder of the physical toll. Should Jokić risk his body for an MVP award, only to break down in the postseason? The 65-game rule forces players into an impossible choice, prioritizing awards over long-term health.
The solution? The NBA should rethink this rule. While games played matter, they shouldn’t be the sole criterion for awards. A minimum minutes-played threshold would better measure a player’s value through volume rather than an arbitrary game count. The league must address the injury crisis before this rule permanently alters NBA history.
What do you think? Is the 65-game rule fair, or is it rewriting history in the wrong way? Let’s debate in the comments—your take could spark the next big conversation in basketball.
