Joel Embiid remains one of the most dominant forces in basketball when healthy, having won the MVP award just two seasons ago with staggering averages of 33 points and 10 rebounds per game. His ability to score from anywhere on the court and protect the rim makes him a rare two-way superstar. Similarly, Trae Young has established himself as an elite playmaker, leading the entire NBA in assists last season with 11 per game while guiding his Atlanta Hawks offense. Both players have consistently performed at an All-Star level and are very different players when it comes to size, style, and well, effectively everything.

However, ESPN’s recently released annual NBA Player Rankings for the 2025-26 season have united fans of the two players. The list, compiled by over 150 experts, aims to forecast performance based on both quality and quantity of contributions. For two established stars like Embiid and Young, the results published this week delivered what many fans are calling a harsh and questionable reality check.

The rankings placed Joel Embiid at number 47, a stunning thirty-nine spot drop from his position at number 8 just one year ago. The justification cited his limited availability, as he played only 19 games last season due to a knee injury. ESPN’s Tim Bontemps explained the reasoning, stating, “It is almost impossible to rank Embiid after the former MVP played just 19 games last season. If he is back and healthy, he’s obviously a top-10-caliber player… But that’s a very big if”. This emphasis on recent health over historic production formed the core of their argument.

Trae Young found himself ranked 29th, which, while an improvement from his previous spot at 37, still places him behind several players with less impressive resumes. Young led the league in assists with a franchise record 880 last season, a feat that historically commands more respect. The ranking seems to undervalue his role as an offensive engine, particularly when compared to players ranked above him like Derrick White- who have not achieved similar playmaking dominance or led their teams to conference finals appearances.

The controversy stems from the methodology which prioritizes projected availability and immediate impact over past accomplishments. For Joel Embiid, his MVP caliber talent when healthy is undeniable, but his recent injury history created significant uncertainty. For Young, his consistent availability and league leading assists were weighed against his team’s playoff results. Both the players have a clear run at making a mockery of the rankings as well.

Embiid is finally healthy and ready to take the new season by storm, while the Hawks have invested in the roster and finally look set to have a team around Young that is capable of actually competing. However, before the players can do something about it, the fans have, targeting ESPN for the two stars’ rankings.

NBA community displeased with Joel Embiid, Trae Young’s ESPN rankings

The immediate reaction from basketball fans was swift and critical. One fan captured the general disbelief, writing, “Wild seeing Embiid all the way down at 47”. This sentiment is understandable given Embiid’s achievements. He is a two time scoring champion and seven time All Star who, just two years ago, became the first player since Wilt Chamberlain to average more points than minutes played in a season. Placing him behind dozens of players who have never approached that level of dominance seems disproportionate to many.

However, another perspective emerged acknowledging the injury concerns. A different comment argued, “I like where they put Embiid. You gotta prove yourself again. He’ll be top 10 if he’s healthy.” This view aligns with ESPN’s stated goal of predicting contributions for the upcoming season only. With Embiid managing a serious knee issue that limited him to 58 games over the past two years, the ranking reflects a cautious projection rather than a denial of his abilities when available.

Several fans pointed out specific ranking inconsistencies that weakened the list’s credibility. One noted, “Derrick white ahead of Trae, ja, and Embiid butler ahead of kawhi”. The comparison is telling. Derrick White, ranked 26th, averaged 16 points and 5 assists last season, while Trae Young at 29th averaged 24 points and 12 assists. Similarly, Jimmy Butler at 18th has never won a championship, while Kawhi Leonard at 20th is a two time Finals MVP, suggesting the criteria may have been applied unevenly.

Another fan expanded on the flaws, stating, “This list is so silly. Not having Duren or Ausar is a crime. Joel Embiid at 47 a 39-spot health penalty on a reigning-MVP-level guy. Even having Cade Cunningham at 12 (up from 67!) is still too low. Trae led the league in assists; still outside the top-25?”. This comment highlights multiple issues, including the exclusion of promising players like Isaiah Stewart and Ausar Thompson, while questioning why Young’s assist title didn’t earn him a top 25 spot despite his clear impact. Further, while injury concerns may be legitimate, it must be noted that Embiid has exclusively played at a high level whenever he has been fit.

Last season, he averaged 23.8 points and 8.2 rebounds in his 19 appearances, and the player can still prove impossible to defend when fit. Regardless, the volume of perceived errors led to broader criticism of ESPN’s motives. One fan concluded, “There’s so much wrong it’s almost impossible to critique. They did A+ ragebaiting work”. This accusation of deliberate controversy may be unwarranted. However, the question marks certainly seem legitimate.

Another comment connected this to financial priorities, noting, “not surprised this list comes from the same company paying SAS $40M a year”. Stephen A. Smith’s reported $40 million annual earnings exceed the salaries of many NBA stars, fueling skepticism that ESPN values inflammatory content over analytical accuracy. This pattern suggests that the rankings may be designed more for discussion than for genuine player evaluation. At the same time, it gives both the stars plenty of reason to hit the upcoming campaign running, which can only be a positive.