English
Español
Cooper Flagg is currently the odds-on favorite to win Rookie of the Year. His Duke roommate, Kon Kneueppel, is behind him at around +220 (you bet $100, you win $220). Flagg is currently injured (and Dallas is tanking), and, as somewhat of a betting man myself, I wondered why I should not take the juice on Kneuppel in anticipation that Flagg doesn’t reach the 65-game threshold. This led me to a Marc Stein tweet where he explained that the threshold does not apply to the Rookie of the Year award. Why? Outside of MVP, you could argue that Rookie of the Year is the most coveted award in basketball. Unlike the other trophies, you only have one shot to win it. The NBA’s desire for players to play more is the genesis for this arbitrary number of games, and yet it does not apply to the award that theoretically should have the most participation. This is a sign of a fundamentally broken system, and instead of trying to assign more random parameters around qualification, they should scrap it all and let chaos win.
Cade Cunningham could win the MVP this year by default, essentially. This is not a knock on Cade, as he is the leader of the East’s best team currently. But at their current pace, the only top-five MVP candidate (by betting odds) outside of Cunningham that is on track to play 65-plus games this season is Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who is on pace for just 67 and is also currently hurt. So we may see a year where Nikola Jokic, averaging a triple-double while leading the league in rebounds and assists, Luka Doncic, averaging 32.5 points, and Victor Wembanyama, blocking nearly three shots a game to go with his 24 points and 11 rebounds on a Spurs team that has improved its win total by seven games already, all do not qualify for MVP. And for what? To satisfy a made-up, health-related rule in a league that is increasingly more injured as the days pass? It is completely asinine. The voting has always been narrative-based and subjective, and now is the time to lean in and remove any objectivity so creativity can run free.
Adam Silver has said the NBA is a social league, and one that values internet clips and reactions. What if, instead of closed-door voting, they broadcast the deliberation? Imagine a room with Bill Simmons, Kendrick Perkins, and other NBA talking heads duking it out over why Nikola Jokic’s advanced metrics outweigh Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s bucket-getting ability. Or maybe they throw Chuck Klosterman in there, and he dispels any Luka Doncic support, citing Nico Harrison’s probable cause for trading him. That would do numbers on social media, Adam! After all, the media ultimately writes the history books. The discussion around the games is done by the people who vote for these awards, so why restrict their subjectivity at all?
It’s time to get weird. The NBA’s half-baked attempt to put bumpers up on award voting has failed, even if all the aforementioned players reach 65 games played. That these conversations even happen is an indictment of this fragile algorithm. These awards ultimately matter only in debate circles and online forums, so trying to act like they are a sacred relic with high standards is counterintuitive to the goal. In fact, let’s go a step further. Each candidate should have to pitch their case to a Shark-Tank-esque panel of writers and analysts. You want clips, commissioner? How about one of Shaquille O’Neal saying “I’m out” after Victor Wembanyama points to his three-point efficiency at 7’4” as a pillar of his MVP argument.
There are better ways to decide these awards. If the rules apply to some, but not all of them, then it’s time to get rid of the rules. The NBA is an experimental league. We have seen this with All-Star weekend, the play-in tournament, and the NBA Cup. The awards should be the next thing to throw fun wrinkles at.