With the injury to Nikola Jokic and the repeated absences of Victor Wembanyama and Giannis Antetokounmpo, three of the best players on the basketball planet are likely to be deprived of NBA Awards at the end of the season. The reason? The rule of minimum 65 matches played, which is more debated than ever.
A quick reminder before going any further: the rule of 65 matches played was put in place from the 2023-24 season, with the primary aim of fighting against load management (stars who miss matches to rest). It prevents any player who has played less than 65 matches out of 82 from being eligible for the following rewards:
- The title of MVP
- The title of Defender of the Year
- The title of MIP (Best Progress)
- Les All-NBA Teams
- Les All-Defensive Teams
If it exists some exceptions and small subtleties in this rule, it should logically prevent players like Nikola Jokic, Victor Wembanyama and Giannis Antetokounmpo (or even Luka Doncic) from being rewarded at the end of the season. The Joker is absent for a month because of a knee injury, Wemby has already missed 14 matches out of 17 authorized (calf, knee), the same for Giannis who has had quite a few injuries since the start of the season.
Even with 64 games played in MVP mode, none of these three monsters can claim an end-of-season award, or even a place on the third All-NBA Team. On the other hand, a clearly less dominant player – All-Star type but nothing more – who plays 66 games will be able to claim it. Said like that, it’s hard not to wonder about the relevance of the rule.
Nikola Jokic has played in all 32 games for the Nuggets this season.
Denver plays one more game in 2025.
They play 17 games in January. Should Joker miss all of next month, he would fall short of the required 65 games played to qualify for MVP and other awards. pic.twitter.com/diX5HRJxOw
— ClutchPoints (@ClutchPoints) December 30, 2025
These questions are all the more legitimate given that historically, since 2000, we have rarely seen a player win an individual award by playing less than 65 matches (in a season of 82 matches, excluding lockout or pandemic).
- MVP: lowest total = 66 games (Joel Embiid in 2022-23)
- DPOY: lowest total = 56 games (Rudy Gobert in 2017-18, two other players elected under 65 games)
- MIP: lowest total = 57 games (Ja Morant in 2021-22, the only one)
What does that mean? That the voters (journalists) did the sorting themselves to avoid rewarding a player who had not played enough matches compared to the competition. Of course it’s up to everyone’s interpretation, but there was not this strict limit which can potentially be irrelevant when comparing two players. This allowed some players to win an NBA Award by playing less than 65 games, but most of the time it was deserved (at least it didn’t scandalize anyone).
Regarding All-NBA Teams and All-Defensive Teams, many players were rewarded by playing fewer than 65 games before the rule was implemented for the 2023-24 season. This especially applies to the third All-NBA Team, and the second All-Defensive Team. Once again, voters judged for themselves and measured the impact of missed matches when ranking the best players of the season. Not that their choices weren’t open to criticism, but it was fairly representative of the real level of the players as well as the progress of the season.
“I’ve never been a big fan of the 65-game rule. It’s difficult to win the MVP by playing 63 or 64 games anyway, no matter if there is a rule. But the All-NBA Teams are different for me. For the All-NBA Third Team, at a minimum, the rule should be canceled because I don’t want to put a Julius Randle in front of Kevin Durant or Nikola Jokic just because the latter played 59 and 63 games, when everyone knows they are better.
As an observer of the NBA, and a voter, I would like to have the freedom to choose, I am able to make rational decisions depending on the number of games played, that’s my job. Let me do it. » –Zach Lowe, The Ringer
The point about the All-NBA Third Team is particularly relevant, in the sense that it opens the door to players who are not part of the best 15 of the season, and who end up being rewarded “by default”. When we know that an All-NBA nomination can boost the amount of a contract, we realize that the consequences go beyond the individual legacy of the players, the track record, and historical comparisons. There is a financial aspect to take into account, both for the players and for the teams.
For example, we have seen players – like Tyrese Haliburton two years ago – push their bodies to reach the mark of 65 matches played, and thus give themselves the opportunity to get a bonus on their salary. We let you imagine the consequences on the health of players and the injuries that this can cause. So of course, some will say that the players were looking for it by doing a series of RTTs in the regular season (load management), but not sure that the 65-game rule was really the most appropriate response.
The 65 game rule has always been a terrible rule.
They say the rule was to prevent load management but it’s only hurt players with legit injuries. https://t.co/xkIQe5uOAz
— Drew Hanlen (@DrewHanlen) December 30, 2025
So, should we review the rule of 65 matches played?
Fervent defenders of this rule will say that « availibility is the best ability » (the best quality is to be available for your team), and that the rule is the same for everyone. Its biggest detractors think it should be completely removed.
Between the two, we can imagine some adaptations: for example lifting the rule for All-NBA / All-Defensive teams, or lowering the total games a little so that the absence is significant enough for a player to be legitimately excluded from discussions. This could be 58 participations (70% of matches played), to align with the minimum number of matches necessary to be part of the end-of-season statistical rankings (top scorer, etc.). Would we return to the same frenzied discussions as with the 65 matches? Perhaps, but they would probably carry less weight in the overall context.
In the end, everyone has their own opinion on the matter but one thing is certain: the 65-game rule is far from unanimous.
Related reading
