Reply With Quote
When comparing a defensive specialist (Rodman/Bowen) to a All-Star caliber all-around player (Duncan/Bryant) that argument is weak and insignificant.
He was.
When comparing a defensive specialist (Rodman/Bowen) to a All-Star caliber all-around player (Duncan/Bryant) that argument is weak and insignificant.
Go back in your corner. Grown ups are talking...
Obviously the stats favor Ben so I realize that's not what your argument would be. But I'd still like you to hear one. Why did Bruce Bowen deserve the DPOY over Ben Wallace in 2004-05?
Under that rationale, Mutombo > Rodman... GTFO...
Shhh girl... you're way over your head here...
It took you 8 pages to figure out the topic is Defense? LOL, ohm I'm surprised.
Wrong. There are more factors. I never said DPOY is the only factor. You can go back in your corner now. Grown folks still sorting things out.
TBH, 8 pages later and you're still a dumbass... so YMMV
That's the problem, you never said anything. You keep on moving the goalposts to suit your argument. But guys like you are dime a dozen here, so you should feel at home.
And why don't you make me go to the corner, tough girl?
He was the best defender on the championship team. Better man defender, more versatile (could guard 1-3) and he had a psychological advantage. He really got under his man's skin. Wallace was intimidating for sure, but Bowen really bothered people. I also think it's harder to be a good wing defender than a good post defender. I'm not saying Wallace didn't deserve it, but for him to win in '05 AND '06 when Bowen never won one, is a crime.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...2006.html#dpoy
DPOY voting and stats for 2004-05 for those interested...
What?! Everything I posted is topic specific.
You've been arguing around the topic the for the entire thread.
I wasn't arguing what's what. I was arguing impact. Those "selections" have just as much impact as "awards" when it comes to the big picture...which is HOF "selection".
That link goes to 2005-06, but . . . Bowen should have won one of those.
-being on a championship team that year has no bearing on the award as it is a regular season award. The regular season awards are voted and determined before the playoffs and before the championship is decided. If you were going to use that argument, Ben Wallace was on the defending championship team in 2004-05.
-Bruce being "more versatile" is subjective, and absolutely arguable. When Ben Wallace was first in the NBA on the then Washington Bullets, they tried to make him a shooting guard because of his height. Ben in his prime (including the 2004-05 season) had the athleticism and quickness to guard most small forwards and would often switch onto perimeter players with no problem. If Bruce can guard 1-3 effectively, Ben could actually guard 2-5 effectively. I'd argue pretty strongly who was more versatile.
-you should go through this entire thread with the debate between Tim Duncan and Dennis Rodman. Part of the argument holds true in a comparison between Ben and Bruce. Ben was an elite defender individually in his own right, but beyond that he was the anchor of one of the best defenses in the league. Bruce, while an elite defender, wasn't the anchor of the great Spurs defense. Duncan was. That makes a huge difference to me.
-your last point about Ben already winning 2 so it was a crime Bruce hadn't gotten one is really weak. It's the reason why Karl Malone has two MVPs because some voters got sick of giving the award to Jordan. It shouldn't matter how many DPOYs Ben had or was going to end up with. It should be strictly about who was the better defender that particular season. I would welcome a debate with you explaining why Bruce deserved it in 2004-05. What you've told me so far doesn't cut it. And this last point was pretty much horse .
Agreed. I'm not ready to start taking awards away from players who earned them and won them just to pump Bowen up (disagree with a Laker fan at all costs).
I was never on the Bowen bandwagon. I recognized he was a good defender but I doubt he would be the same defender without Duncan standing behind him. Also, rebounding is apart of defense and Bowen averaging 3 boards a game when he had no other real duties was baffling to me. You can say it was because he was on the perimeter and all but plenty of other forwards were defending on the perimeter as well and they were averaging well over 3 freakin boards a game...that's atrocious.
Slightly off-topic (should fit right in..) but does Anybody remember when this shot of Bowen was taken?
Right after Fisher hit the 0.4 shot. Notice the ESPN Classic logo top right corner.
Why was Bowen on the bench during this crucial moment in a playoff game?
Bowen was first noticed as a great defender by Riles, but even then he had an incredible defensive anchor playing behind him (Mourning). Not to take anything away from Bowen, but Jam's point about Wallace being a great one-on-one defender as well as being the anchor pretty much seals up this argument.
Actually, '05 or '06, it doesn't matter. Stats are great but they only paint part of the picture.
Don't be so defensive. I never said that Wallace didn't deserve to win, I'm just saying that Bowen deserved it at least as much. I don't think I can go along with your "Ben could actually guard 2-5 effectively" theory. Wallace was quick for a big man, but there is no way he could guard elite 2 & 3s in the NBA, he also had trouble with long, skilled 5s. He did a great job on Shaq though and I give him a lot of credit for that. He didn't fare as well against Duncan, however.
I still maintain that Bowen was more versatile because he could guard elite players 1-3.
I have read the significant parts of this thread. I don't agree with the premise because, as you said, Duncan was the defensive anchor for an elite defensive team. Rodman was a supremely talented defensive specialist, but not an anchor by any stretch of the imagination.
I should have included '06 in my original assessment, but there is no doubt that Bowen and Wallace were the two best defenders in the league those two years. Given that they both play different positions and were the best defenders at those two positions, Bowen should have been given the award one of the two years.
I know it comes down to votes, but I'm talking about who deserves it, not a popularity contest. Bowen was respected, but not well liked. Wallace was much more popular and marketable.
Again, I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to discredit Wallace to pump up Bowen, but you asked . . .
Good question, and I honestly don't know the answer. Looking at the boxscore, he had only one PF and was 3-6 from the field with 8 pts (so he wasn't a complete offensive liability either). It's baffling he wasn't out there, even though he would've been guarding Kobe instead of Fish anyways
Slightly off-topic (should fit right in..) but does Anybody remember when this shot of Bowen was taken?
Right after Fisher hit the 0.4 shot. Notice the ESPN Classic logo top right corner.
Why was Bowen on the bench during this crucial moment in a playoff game?
Duncan/Mourning/Wallace are defensive anchors because that is the nature of their position. You aren't going to find many defensive anchors who were wing players.
I wouldn't criticize Bowen too much for not rebounding. That was never really asked of him. And as you even pointed out, he was a lockdown perimeter defender, meaning he was often out by the three point line shutting down perimeter players. But that does go to the point about versatility. Ben Wallace could dominate defensively by being a very good (I wouldn't say great) low post defender, an elite shotblocker and rebounder, a very good (not great) man defender out on the perimeter. Ben was also elite at deflecting passes and getting steals for a big man. To me that shows more versatility rather than saying Bruce could guard positions 1-3. Bowen excelled at one thing, perimeter man defense. He didn't excel at anything else defensively, whether rebounding, being an effective post defender, getting in passing lanes for steals. Things like that. Bruce was a great, great defender. I'd argue about the "being more versatile" point.
Which also reminds of someone who by now gets lost in the talks of great defenders in the 2000s. Andrei Kirilenko. In his first few seasons, to me, Kirilenko was about as great a perimeter defender as there was in the league, including the likes of Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Doug Christie. And talk about versatile. He could be that lockdown perimeter defender. But he also rebounded, blocked shots, and got steals. Basically the perimeter version of Ben Wallace. And he was a true lockdown perimeter defender. I've always been a fan of his defense. If we talk about versatile defenders, AK-47 should definitely be mentioned. I think injuries too their toll. His game isn't where it was his first 2-3 seasons in the league. But in those early 2000s, man was he a defensive beast.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
