I’ve thought that Embiid represents an interesting case for the new rule that players must play 65 games to qualify for end-of-season awards. I think Embiid can be the actual MVP playing 64 games a year. But things have to go very well for him health-wise to play 64 games, and that being a do-or-die situation in terms of eligibility (and contract implications) puts him in a weaker position than before the 65-game rule.

I think his case shows how the goalposts for these awards have shifted. You don’t just need to perform at a high level, you’ll probably need to be one of the healthiest athletes in the league too, and this has the potential to unfairly discriminate against certain players based on age, body type, and injury proneness.

How many games a player plays has always been taken into consideration for these types of awards. But this change isn’t actually about the awards. It’s about forcing stars to be on the court, so the NBA can make $$$. I do think there are valid arguments for the new rule, and I know it was agreed to in the CBA, but players like Embiid have been screwed over and I don’t think ‘elite healthiness’ should be weighted so heavily as this in the awards