The 6th Man of the Year is… Overrated

By Cody O’Brien, Basketball Analyst

The NBA’s 6th Man of the Year award is overrated because it values players coming off the bench over starters, and is usually given to players who don’t have huge impacts on their team’s success. So, who cares who wins 6th Man of the Year?

Hear me out. I know the award has been a very prestigious one since it was first given in the 1982-83 season. I know that the 6th man is almost never the 6th best player on the team, and most of them play even bigger roles than certain starters. The 6th man is the leader of the second unit and gives teams a spark plug coming off the bench. However, they are still coming off the bench. There is something to be said about them not being good enough to lead the first unit.

I’m all for awarding the best player coming off the bench but starters should be acknowledged first. Supporting starters such as Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, Chris Paul (this year), and Paul George have huge impacts on their respective teams, but don’t have the chance to compete for individual awards. Since they are not the main star of their team they can’t compete for MVP, and they don’t come off the bench so they can’t be awarded 6th Man of the Year.

Most winners of the 6th Man award are the team’s best supporting player. Last year’s winner, Eric Gordon, and 2013’s winner, J.R. Smith, were certainly the best supporting players on their respective teams. This year’s winner, Lou Williams, was actually not even a supporting player, but arguably the Clippers’ best player. I don’t know about everyone else, but that makes me wonder why Williams would come off the bench in the first place.

The argument for having a good player come off the bench is that it’s simply what’s best for the team. Teams want a good second unit to have an advantage over the opposition when starters are resting. I’d argue that in most cases the 6th man doesn’t have enough impact on the team’s success to justify him coming off the bench.

Let’s take this year for example, how much impact could Williams have had on the Clippers if they only won 42 games and didn’t make the playoffs? Perhaps they would’ve been better if Williams was in the starting lineup. Or perhaps Williams wouldn’t have had such an impressive season if he wasn’t matching up against the second unit of opposing teams so often.

That’s the problem with the award. It contradicts the criteria for the MVP. It says it’s okay to not be the leader on your team. It says it’s okay to not lead your team to success.

Like I said before, it’s okay to award the best player coming off the bench. Though rewarding those players without also awarding impactful players who don’t come off the bench is a complete joke.