Understandable

Apologies to Nathaniel Friedman on my Slate rant yesterday. He commented on the blog, and I re-read his article. I still don't quite "agree," but I can see where he's going with it. I really kind of misunderstood it when I read it yesterday.
He's not advocating a shortening from the standpoint of someone who obsesses over basketball (me), but rather the "casual fan." And I can understand that most fans don't go home from work and park in front of the tube for 6 straight hours of Ernie, Charles, Kenny and the playoffs... everyday. And most of them don't play in 3 fantasy leagues and follow the stats and as many games as possible, all year, for all the teams. Additionally, I'd imagine, most of them don't know what the PER is, or the +/-, or why you should never listen to what Bill Walton is saying. (Even as I write this, I start to wonder; am I watching too much? The answer is no.)
So for them (being the vast majority of fans), I understand why he preferred the best-of-5 first round to the best-of-7, and he does actually make a good point about how more than half the league makes the playoffs. That doesn't really seem right when you think about it. Still, maybe it would just be better if we added an additional round or three, and just included all the rest of the teams...
Can you say 1 seed vs. 15 seed? 4 months of playoffs? 80 games in 80 nights? Lordy, that would be kick ass...

Slate's Idea of a "Sports Nut"

Apparently Slate, the respected online magazine, thinks a "sports nut," is someone who encourages you not to follow sports. This is Nathaniel Friedman. And this is what he thinks about the NBA playoffs. (Hat tip to GasFace for bringing this to my attention)
I'm shocked frankly, because I think he's also one of the guys behind FreeDarko which is a sweet blog.
He opens it up with a jaw dropper:

Even the most die-hard basketball fans think that the NBA playoffs are too long.

I'm a die-hard fan. I hang out with a few die-hard fans, and I read a bunch of other die-hard fans. And I'm being 100% honest when I tell you, I've never heard even a single one of them lament the length of the NBA Playoffs. Friedman raises a good point about the length and arduous nature of the playoffs, or "second season." But true "die-hard fans" get revved up by that. This is my favorite time of year. Now a good argument can be made to shorten the regular season. By shortening the grueling 82 game regular season, the players would be fresher, and therefore the post season would be more exciting, with a higher level of play.
Loving basketball as much as I do, I wish they'd just make the damn thing year round and add more games, but I see the wisdom in a proposed shortening of the regular season. But the playoffs are where the best games happen! The best players get to show their best stuff and we get to watch all of it! Proposing to cut that short is heresy.
Friedman continues with a comparison to football and baseball that attempts to illustrate why you should just watch part of the game (maybe the most asinine concept I've ever heard of...). All it does is illustrate why basketball is the greatest sport on earth. The game doesn't stop every 2 seconds, there are no long periods of guys just standing around. That's not a bad thing, that's one of the reasons basketball is both an action game, and a thinking man's game.
But if you're in a hurry, and looking for summaries, here's one: skip Friedman's article, close your laptop, watch every minute of playoffs basketball you can, celebrate the Cavs' victories with alcohol.
(And the congregation says) Amen.