THE JOKIC INJURY THAT EXPOSED A FLAWED SYSTEM:
The scene in Denver was one of collective dread. Nikola Jokic, the three-time MVP and the beating heart of the Nuggets, went down under the basket in a seemingly innocous play against the Memphis Grizzlies. He grabbed his left hamstring. The initial diagnosis: a strain. The immediate consequence: he would miss time. But in the modern NBA, an injury to a superstar is no longer just a medical event. It is now a ticking clock on his legacy, thanks to one of the most controversial rules in professional sports.
The NBA’s “65-Game Rule.” Instituted as part of the 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the rule was a direct response to the epidemic of “load management” healthy stars sitting out games for rest. To be eligible for major regular season awards like MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, and All NBA teams, a player must now appear in at least 65 games.
The intent was noble: force stars to play for the fans who pay to see them. But the effect has been diabolical. The rule does not distinguish between a player resting on a back to back and a player like Jokic suffering a legitimate, fluke injury. As Jokic faces missing the 8-10 games required to heal properly, his historic campaign and his place in the record books is suddenly in jeopardy.
Former NBA star Kenyon Martin Sr. unleashed the fury of a generation on his podcast, “Point Game.” His message was a thunderclap: “We’re f—ing with people’s legacies… Abolish the rule. Get rid of it.”
MARTIN’S OUTBURST ISN’T JUST ANGRY RANTING; IT’S A DIAGNOSIS OF A SYSTEM GONE HORRIBLY WRONG. The NBA, in its quest to solve one problem, has created a far more dangerous one: incentivizing players to risk their long-term health for short-term accolades, and unfairly penalizing the unlucky. The case of Nikola Jokic isn’t an anomaly; it’s the canary in the coal mine, and it’s showing us that the entire structure is toxic.
IS THE LEAGUE REALLY WILLING TO LET A HAMSTRING STRAIN COST NIKOLA JOKIC A FOURTH MVP AND ALTER HIS ALL TIME STANDING? The answer, under the current rules, is a resounding and frightening “yes.”
FROM SOLUTION TO PROBLEM: HOW THE 65-GAME RULE BACKFIRED SPECTACULARLY
The rule’s architects envisioned a simple fix. For years, fans, broadcast partners, and even other players complained about marquee names sitting out nationally televised games. The league’s product was being devalued. The 65 game threshold (roughly 79% of the season) was seen as a reasonable bar to ensure commitment.
But the law of unintended consequences struck with a vengeance. The rule didn’t stop load management; it just changed its form. Now, teams meticulously plan “injury management” for stars with nagging issues, targeting exactly which 17 games they can afford to miss. It has become a strategic chess game, not a guarantee of availability.
More perversely, it has created a massive incentive to play hurt. For a player on the fringe of an All NBA team or a major award, the financial and legacy stakes are enormous. Making an All-NBA team can trigger a “supermax” contract extension, worth tens of millions more. For veterans, it can mean the difference between a Hall of Fame induction and being forgotten.
“We’re asking guys to play through s— they shouldn’t be playing through,” Kenyon Martin argued. “A tweaked ankle becomes ‘I gotta get to 65.’ A sore back becomes ‘I can’t miss tonight.'” The rule pressures trainers and medical staff to clear players who might benefit from more rest, increasing the risk of a minor injury becoming a major, season ending one.
The injury to Joel Embiid last season was the first major red flag. The Philadelphia 76ers star, in the midst of a historic scoring season, played through knee issues in a clear push to hit the 65 game mark for MVP eligibility. He suffered a torn meniscus, requiring surgery and derailing the 76ers’ championship hopes. The league was warned: you are creating a dangerous environment.
Now, with Jokic, the warning becomes a five-alarm fire. Here is the best player in the world, having perhaps his most efficient season ever, being punished not for a lack of commitment, but for the simple, random bad luck of a muscle strain. The rule is exposed as a blunt instrument, incapable of discerning between negligence and misfortune.
“F—ING WITH LEGACIES”: THE HISTORICAL COST OF A HAMSTRING
Kenyon Martin’s use of the word “legacies” is precise and devastating. For elite players, regular season awards are the building blocks of their historical résumé. They are the hard evidence presented to voters a decade from now.
Let’s project the catastrophic cost to Nikola Jokic if he misses, say, 12 games:
- A Fourth MVP: He was the clear frontrunner. A fourth MVP would tie him with LeBron James and Michael Jordan and place him behind only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (6). It would cement him as arguably the greatest regular-season player of his generation. That is now in severe jeopardy.
- All-NBA First Team: A seemingly automatic honor. But missing it due to games played would create an absurd historical footnote: “Nikola Jokic, the best player in the league in 2025, was not on the All NBA First Team.”
- Statistical History: Jokic is flirting with a third straight season averaging a triple double and is on pace for the most efficient high volume scoring season ever. Falling short of 65 games would render those season long averages officially ineligible for the record books in the eyes of many historians and fans.
This isn’t about one trophy. It’s about the permanent narrative. Future debates will include the phrase, “He would have won MVP in 2025 if not for the games played rule.” The rule inserts an asterisk where there should be affirmation. It allows a minor injury to create a major historical distortion.
The precedent is terrifying. Imagine if this rule existed when Larry Bird missed 76 games with back issues at his peak? Or when Stephen Curry had his “ankle years”? It would have actively stripped them of accolades they earned through their play when they were on the court. The league is essentially saying that availability a factor often dictated by pure luck is more important than transcendent quality.
As Martin put it, the rule is “punishing the wrong people.” It was designed for the healthy resters. It is instead hammering the injured competitors. In doing so, it is vandalizing the historical record.
THE PLAYER REVOLT: WHY VETERANS LIKE MARTIN ARE LEADING THE CHARGE
Kenyon Martin Sr. is not a neutral observer. He is a former No. 1 overall pick who played in an era of brutal physicality. He sees the modern player being squeezed from both sides: asked to play a faster, more demanding style than ever before, while also being held to an arbitrary games played standard that ignores the reality of an 82-game grind.
“Your body is your business. Your health is your wealth,” Martin stated, framing it as an economic issue. “This rule is telling you to risk your business for their product.” He represents a growing sentiment among former players and agents that the league has overstepped, turning awards that should be about excellence into a punitive attendance record.
Current stars are more muted publicly, fearing fines, but the frustration is palpable. The players’ union agreed to the rule as a bargaining chip in the last CBA, likely underestimating its impact. The Jokic injury is the crisis point that will force it to the top of the agenda in the next negotiation.
The potential for perverse outcomes is endless. A player could play 64 games, suffer a season ending injury, and lose $40 million in supermax eligibility. A team out of playoff contention could shut down its healthy star at 64 games to protect its lottery odds, knowingly costing him an All NBA spot. The rule creates conflicts of interest between individual and team goals that never should exist.
Martin’s call for abolition is the clearest path, but a modification is more likely. Expect a fierce push for an “injured list exception,” where games missed due to a verifiable injury documented by league appointed doctors do not count against the 65 game threshold for awards. The challenge will be defining “verifiable” and preventing teams from gaming that system, too.
A BETTER WAY: CAN THE NBA FIX WHAT IT BROKE?
The league is in a bind. It cannot simply ignore the load management problem that angered its core customers. But the 65 game rule, as constructed, is clearly a failure. It solves nothing and breaks everything.
Several alternative solutions exist that don’t involve legacy wrecking mandates:
- The “Primetime Game” Mandate: Instead of a total games rule, require stars to play in, say, 90% of their team’s nationally televised games, unless medically ruled out by an independent panel. This targets the exact problem fans being robbed of the marquee matchups they were promised.
- Tiered Financial Incentives: Create a massive, league wide bonus pool for players who hit certain games-played thresholds (e.g., $1 million for 65 games, $2.5 million for 72 games). Make it a carrot, not a stick. This rewards the ironmen without punishing the injured.
- Stricter, Uniform Medical Standards: Empower a centralized league medical office to review and approve all “injury management” rest days. If a player is declared healthy by the league’s doctor, he plays. This removes the decision from individual teams and creates a true, league wide standard.
The core principle must be restored: the best players, when they play, should win the awards. The criteria should be dominance, not durability luck. The MVP should go to the Most Valuable Player, not the Most Available Player.
Nikola Jokic’s hamstring strain is a test of the NBA’s priorities. Will it cling to a flawed rule for the sake of administrative simplicity, or will it recognize that it is on the verge of cheapening its own history and endangering its athletes?
Kenyon Martin screamed the truth into the microphone. The question is, is the league office listening, or are they too busy counting games to understand what they’re truly losing?
Should individual excellence or mere availability be the primary measure of an NBA player’s season?