Whatever happened to all the posts about the Spurs never being able to beat LA with Bowen, because he couldn't score? Apparently the Spurs were able to do just that. Bryant outscored Bowen 32 to 11, and the Spurs won the series rather easily. In fact Bowen's numbers are inflated because of Game 2, in which he scored 27 points and the Spurs blew the Lakers out. If you take away Game 2, in which the Spurs won easily, the point totals are 33 to 8. It would be nice to hear from verse here, although I'm afraid I may be asking too much. Game 1: Spurs 87, Lakers 82 Bryant 16-38 (42%), 5 TO, 37 points Game 2: Spurs 114, Lakers 95 Bryant 9-24 (38%), 5 TO, 27 points Game 3: Lakers 110, Spurs 95 Bryant 10-23 (43%), 4 TO, 39 points Game 4: Lakers 99, Spurs 95 Bryant 10-24 (42%), 2 TO, 35 points Game 5: Spurs 96, Lakers 94 Bryant 15-31 (48%), 4 TO, 36 points Game 6: Lakers 82, Spurs 110 Bryant: 9-19 (47%), 7 TO, 20 points Bryant: 69-159 (43%), 4.5 TO, 32 points Bowen's points: Game 1: 8 Game 2: 27 Game 3: 3 Game 4: 9 Game 5: 12 Game 6: 8 Avg: 11.2 Games 1, 3-6: 8
you mind adding in the actual minutes Bowen plays SF vs SG now.... umm, they have Ginobili and Stephon Jackson, remember. your stats are useless
btw: I'm not part of the crowd who says the Spurs had no chance. I actually believed the Kings and Spurs were the only teams with any chance. Just think the Bowen vs Kobe issue is entirely irrelevant when they had Anderson, then got Jackson and Ginobili. It's not like LA has a SF who you really need to guard straight up...so you could always have Anderson, Ginobili and Jackson switch to SF on defense while Bowen takes Kobe.
I think the issue is irrelevant as well. This thread is directed at those who didn't. You can have a defensive specialist on the perimeter in your starting lineup and still win - the Spurs proved that.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Spurs will forgive you for not believing in the eternal wonder that is Bruce Bowen - they're so classy, after all... ... I hate those classy pieces of sh*t... Werd.
Yeah, I don't see how that matters. If the allegation is that the Spurs couldn't win with an offensive liability in the lineup like Bowen, then it was proven wrong. It doesn't even matter who was covering Bryant because Bryant lit the Spurs for over 30 a game.
But his shooting % was Iverson-like and turnovers Francis-like. If he takes enough shots, he's gonna put up 30 no matter what. It's a matter of Bowen and other good defenders making him take shots in uncomfortable positions, resulting in the lower % and higher frequency of turnovers.
TheFreak, i thought i already said this, but, hey i could be wrong. either way... let me announce to the bbs world that as of 11:26am, on monday, july 21, 2003, verse is admitting that bruce bwen was part of the team (sa spurs) that defeated the lakers and won the nba championship. bruce bwen did an admirable job and should be commended. that said, please don't tell me that his contributions in the lakers series made a huge difference, because i don't believe they did. that series was lost because of a number of reasons that supercede bwen's performance, namely: 1) shaq being overweight and unmotivated. 2) the lakers lack of a power forward. 3) rick fox's injury. 4) devean george's injury. 5) tim duncan's outstanding play. 6) robert horry shooting like tito maddox. those are not necessarily in order of importance, but they were all greater factors in that series than bruce bwen's presence. the man did an admirable job, but let's not overrate or overvalue his contribution, please. oh, and when have you ever known me to not admit to something? i think i have always been consistent in my admissions. p.s. i still think bwen cannot shoot. i don't care what his 3pt % is. the man cannot shoot. check his FT % for further proof. but that doesn't matter, really. he hit enough shots to keep defenses somewhat honest vs. the spurs.
verse, you may have already addressed it, I don't know. That's why I posed it as a question in the title. I'm not trying to overrate the guy. Just pointing out that the Spurs were able to win a championship with him as their starter, which some seemed to think wasn't possible.
Yeah whatever VERSE -- Im sorry but the Lakers LOST the damn series. If the Lakers won everyone would give these excuses for the SPURS as to why they LOST AGAIN to the Lakers. 1) Guards like Parker, Sjax, Ginobili are young and inexperienced 2) Bowen is an offensive liability 3) Drob is way past his peak and rarely healthy 4) Duncan had no help 5) Spurs are chokers Why is it ok to praise the Lakers when they beat the Spurs when they had their injuries in the past to Derek Anderson and David Robinson and the fact that Elliot their starting SF had a kidney disorder etc.....? Fact is the Lakers had SHAQ and KOBE and they were THERE at the end Game 1 and THEY STILL LOST even when the game was tight? Did it have to do with Devaun George who was 0-3 and didnt even play good D before his injury? Oh Im sorry Rick Fox and his 3ppg versus the Spurs this season would have been the difference . Bottom line is the Spurs beat the Lakers in a seven game series just like the Lakers beat them the past two years. Spurs beat the champs not to mention embarrased them on their homecourt by 28 in Game 6 -- so they deserve credit. You want to say Bowen wasnt a huge difference in the series....fine--but don't sit here and tell me the only reason the Spurs won were because of the LAKERS injuries etc....Cause the Lakers have won a few titles against good teams who had some KEY INJURIES as well (Peja/Kings02...Spurs/Duncan00...Drob/Anderson01 etc...) Why don't we make a list as to why those teams didn't win it all those years.
Nikos, are you OK? is your BP kinda high right now? dude, every series has a winner and a loser. and there will always be reasons why the winner won. i'm just pointing out the reasons why, imo, the spurs beat the lakers. i'm taking nothing away from the spurs victory. stop trying to pick an argument with me. congratulations to the spurs on their first nba championship! they should be very, very proud!
btw, Nikos, are you actually saying that the reasons i listed did not contribute to the spurs series victory? there's no shame in it, man. seriously. look at it this way: why did mj win those titles? never had to face a great big man. why did the rockets win 2 titles? didn't have to face seattle. why did the spurs lose to the lakers previously? inexperience & intimidation. in the end, one team won and the other lost. but that does not discredit the factors that influenced the outcome of the series. nor do those factors in any way tarnish the outcome. now go pick a fight with someone else...
Sounded to me like you were trying to take away from their victory. I think its stupid how you made your ridiculous list as if the Lakers would have beaten them easily if George and Fox were healthy and Shaq was MOTIVATED . Shows what a true player Shaq is that he can't even get motivated -- which is why I think he is not as good as Hakeem was -- I don't care if shaq wins 4 more titles. The fact that a non Faker fan says Shaq is unmotivated really says something about Shaq as a player. Hes dominant yes but hes never gonna be on the same plain as MJ, Hakeem no matter WHAT he does from this point in his career.
Just being a little nitpicky here , but what about Patrick Ewing, Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, and I guess Karl Malone can be considered a big man too? Of course, we all know that had he faced Hakeem Olajuwon, it would have been over...
dude, one more time: i'm taking nothing away from the spurs. also, when in shape and motivated, there is no greater player in the nba than shaq o'neal....and yes, they would have crushed the spurs or any other team had he been in shape and motivated. but you know what? if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. shaq was neither in shape nor motivated last year, and he has one person to blame for it: himself. but that doesn't make my reasons any less valid. and, no, shaq is nowhere in the class of hakeem olajuwon. and yes, shaq being unmotivated says a lot about him. to me, it says it's time to retire. when you cannot motivate yourself to commit 100% to your craft/career, you probably have lost the passion and should do yourself the favor of retiring, instead of wasting the talent you have been blessed with... LilStevie3, my bad. i should amend that to say: never faced the greatest big man of his era....
