College Wolf wrote:
7 games. Not bad imo.
Although some media peeps are complaining that they don't think it was harsh enough because of Artest's history of violence in the NBA.
Eh, it's so subjective. You can't make these types of "justice" decisions like that. It's also ludicrous that the NBA doesn't reveal the process they use to determine how punishments are handled.
Why should his past violence be weighed so heavily but the fact that he won the citizenship award NOT be considered?
What's the goal with suspending him 7 games? What do you/we/anyone expect to happen because of this? It was a black out, spur of the moment celebratory move. it's not like he finally got caught for his dirty ways or something. The Bynum suspension, on the other hand, was the tipping point of a pattern of erratic, intentional behavior that was predictable and has been avoided by him understanding the punishment of his behavior.
Speaking of Bynum, If he got 5 games for that vicious move and nothing for attempted homicide on Super Cool (I don't remember what he got for trying to kill beasley, probably a fine or a 1 game suspension), I'd say 7 games is about the max you can give him for something FAR less vicious than Bynum's but more impactful, simply because he's a brick house. It wouldn't have been a big deal if, say Rubio or Ridnour did it. Harden would have shrugged it off. But him swinging at half strength just does more damage.
I dunno. It's so subjective and irrational. Who cares. In hockey we celebrate it. just fine him a bunch and let's play ball. Now you diminish an already shitty NBA product by taking out a key role player on the most popular team.