The Celtics keep making the same mistake. This is how Miami beat them - and how they got bumped from the playoffs the last five years. The simple fix escapes them: do not let Tatum, or JB, bring the ball up at crunch time. When the hero ball happens every one in the arena knows the ball isn't getting passed, the defense is set, and 90% of the possession is dribbling into the teeth of the defense. The game doesn't change only the players' perception. Move the ball find the open man, or run actions to free up the shooters on the move. Two big, strong, and smart point guards in Jure and Derrick - let them run the offense.
Interesting article about Green. I'm a fan of his; I think he's an extremely bright and interesting person, and I'll always be a fan of guys that make their money on defense.
The comparison with Artest, though, frankly, I find it insulting to Artest. I don't think that his most infamous incident is an analogue with Green's.
The part that the author gets wrong is in framing that Artest's actions were worse than Green's. Yes, going into the stands is a no-no, and the fact that the guy he was going after deserved 100% of the ass-kicking that Artest intended to deliver doesn't mitigate that.
The difference, though, is that Artest was reacting in the moment. Look at Green's stomp on the chest of Damontas Sabonis. The play was over, the game had move back to the other end of the court, and Draymond slowly and deliberately lifted his leg and stomped on a player laying on his back on the floor. There is no loss of control here. Green had time to think about it, decided to do it, then did it.
In criminal law, there is a term, "mens rea" which translated means "guilty mind." It is important to establish that a person being tried had the intent to commit the crime they are charged with. In cases of homicide, it can be the difference between murder and manslaughter. If your window air conditioner falls out and kills someone, there was no intent to take a life, and that's manslaughter.
The author frames Artest's actions as worse, I feel, mainly due to scale. Obviously, the potential to start a riot is a fuse that you don't want to light, but as I see it, Artest only wanted to get to the guy who'd hit him with a water bottle. Doing so was wrong, but the act was, from a psychological standpoint, (for lack of a better word) pure. There was no slow consideration of actions versus consequences before doing the wrong thing. I feel that this is a very important consideration.
Green may very well be a different person on and off the court, but he isn't the sort of personality that just *does things.* I don't think he can use the excuse of being in-the-moment, because that isn't how his mind works. People who are that intelligent are rarely in a state of mind where the bigger picture is completely invisible.
I hope Green can come back, because as I said earlier, I like the man, and his legacy should be about much more than his behavior. The author's incorrect framing of his actions being less serious than Artest's is simplistic, and lack's proper perspective.
I would suggest the hero ball issue started well before the final possession which from my perception has been a C issue all season and why I am not convinced they are on the road to the finals. As noted by Greg Anthony on the broadcast at I recall around the 5 minute mark of the 4th quarter Boston stopped moving the ball on offence and it was one and done shots which simply fed into the Cavs comeback.
As a Cs fan, I couldn’t agree more with this. The loss highlighted a weakness and gave them a clear and potent reminder of what they need to clean up if they want to win it all.
The Celtics keep making the same mistake. This is how Miami beat them - and how they got bumped from the playoffs the last five years. The simple fix escapes them: do not let Tatum, or JB, bring the ball up at crunch time. When the hero ball happens every one in the arena knows the ball isn't getting passed, the defense is set, and 90% of the possession is dribbling into the teeth of the defense. The game doesn't change only the players' perception. Move the ball find the open man, or run actions to free up the shooters on the move. Two big, strong, and smart point guards in Jure and Derrick - let them run the offense.
They won by 58 the game before, they weren’t going to win by a lot if at all last night.
Interesting article about Green. I'm a fan of his; I think he's an extremely bright and interesting person, and I'll always be a fan of guys that make their money on defense.
The comparison with Artest, though, frankly, I find it insulting to Artest. I don't think that his most infamous incident is an analogue with Green's.
The part that the author gets wrong is in framing that Artest's actions were worse than Green's. Yes, going into the stands is a no-no, and the fact that the guy he was going after deserved 100% of the ass-kicking that Artest intended to deliver doesn't mitigate that.
The difference, though, is that Artest was reacting in the moment. Look at Green's stomp on the chest of Damontas Sabonis. The play was over, the game had move back to the other end of the court, and Draymond slowly and deliberately lifted his leg and stomped on a player laying on his back on the floor. There is no loss of control here. Green had time to think about it, decided to do it, then did it.
In criminal law, there is a term, "mens rea" which translated means "guilty mind." It is important to establish that a person being tried had the intent to commit the crime they are charged with. In cases of homicide, it can be the difference between murder and manslaughter. If your window air conditioner falls out and kills someone, there was no intent to take a life, and that's manslaughter.
The author frames Artest's actions as worse, I feel, mainly due to scale. Obviously, the potential to start a riot is a fuse that you don't want to light, but as I see it, Artest only wanted to get to the guy who'd hit him with a water bottle. Doing so was wrong, but the act was, from a psychological standpoint, (for lack of a better word) pure. There was no slow consideration of actions versus consequences before doing the wrong thing. I feel that this is a very important consideration.
Green may very well be a different person on and off the court, but he isn't the sort of personality that just *does things.* I don't think he can use the excuse of being in-the-moment, because that isn't how his mind works. People who are that intelligent are rarely in a state of mind where the bigger picture is completely invisible.
I hope Green can come back, because as I said earlier, I like the man, and his legacy should be about much more than his behavior. The author's incorrect framing of his actions being less serious than Artest's is simplistic, and lack's proper perspective.
I would suggest the hero ball issue started well before the final possession which from my perception has been a C issue all season and why I am not convinced they are on the road to the finals. As noted by Greg Anthony on the broadcast at I recall around the 5 minute mark of the 4th quarter Boston stopped moving the ball on offence and it was one and done shots which simply fed into the Cavs comeback.
As a Cs fan, I couldn’t agree more with this. The loss highlighted a weakness and gave them a clear and potent reminder of what they need to clean up if they want to win it all.