Hoops

Best Sixth Man: Hakim Warrick

"I'd like to see the requirement for bench starts to be raised to two-thirds, at least. Not that it would've affected the result this year."

Two-thirds works for me. I wouldn't want it much higher though. Any team can experience some injuries that may result in a genuine 6th man being temporarily elevated to the starting 5. I wouldn't want that to cost them their valuable "bench" status ;)
(Leaving it at >50% is fair enough though IMO.
For a full season, current system = 15 games, two-thirds = 19 games. Not a huge difference)

They mentioned the criteria at the awards night, and I mentioned it above. It's starting more games on the bench than on the floor.

The ONLY thing I feel needs to be clarified with this award is how many games can you start before being considered a starter... I'm thinking of someone like Angus Brandt who didn't start until Joe Connolly came in and started every game after that... So is Angus a starter or a bench player.

Thought Jervis should have been in the conversation for this award and not because the end of the season but I thought he was crucial early on when we weren't sure how many minutes Jawai would be playing

Problem for UTD is that Kickert is being found out and NZ seem to have his number.

UTD have plenty of shooters, but NZ dominate the paint and the boards, so if Kickert doesn't fire they are carrying him.

The better balance against NZ may be Majook and Warrick, but it is a case of picking your poison at the moment because Pledger is a player UTD can't seem to manage.

The game last night was very much about match ups, as it usually is, so NZ found the miss-matches and UTD almost helped them do it...

Demopoulos now has to throw caution out and play to win by making moves ahead of NZ, but good luck with that as the Breakers coaching is as good as it gets in the NBL!

The one thing I will say about the criteria is I don't think "starts more games on the bench than on the court" is really the best way of doing it. I'd like to see the requirement for bench starts to be raised to two-thirds, at least. Not that it would've affected the result this year.

Why are you trying to redefine a word?
Starter means a player that starts. Doesn't mean highest scorer. Doesn't mean most minutes. Doesn't mean biggest salary. Doesn't mean most valuable. There are already perfectly good terms to describe those characteristics.
Seriously, wtf? Where is the ambiguity or mystery here?

A starter is someone who starts the game. I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with basic English.

The whole point of starting the award was to recognise that merely starting the game on the bench doesn't mean you're inferior to those who start the game on the court.

Its a nonsensical concept.
I often talk about starters, but I don't really give a rats arse who is standing where for the ball-up. When I talk about starters, I'm referring to the core players who play most of the minutes. Usually, you "start" a game with your best core players on court, hence the term "starters."
Redhage "started" a couple of games this season, but he's not a "starter."

I recall a game, I think it was last season, when Schensey was "started" purely for the tip-off, and then benched at the first opportunity, and played only maybe 15 minutes for the game. Is his "starting" a basis for defining his status as a player.
Put it another way, when its time for new contracts, who are you going to offer more money to? The guy who "started" more games, or the guy who averaged a lot more minutes, points, and rebounds?

Others say its the best "bench player." In which case I would question whether somebody who averages more than half the game on-court can be considered a "bench" player?

Not sure what the grey area is. It's an award for bench players, and he is one.
Yes he plays good minutes, because he's a good player. Thus the winning of the award for being a good player.

It's another of these nebulous awards. What's a "6th man"?
One interpretation, and one that I have historically understood, is that he's a notionally bench player in a team that effectively runs a 6-man "starting" rotation. In which case, Warrick is a perfect winner.

Others say its the best "bench player." In which case I would question whether somebody who averages more than half the game on-court can be considered a "bench" player?

Tai Wesley had some really good games bust missed a chunk through his childs birth and then subsequent illness.