Open Thread: The case against second halves

I’ve probably only finished a handful of things I’ve ever started and, honestly, regret most of those, which is why I was disappointed to see the Spurs and Celtics come out of their locker rooms after having already played 24 minutes of perfectly convincing basketball. It was even more galling that they’d ignore all statistical probability (S/O Inpredictable) and not call it a night.

Nevermind what happened in the next 29 minutes, or that the Spurs will eventually went on to have multiple crunch-time options, or that they haven’t been able to reliably inbound the ball since Kyle Anderson left, or that they have a -4.8 net rating in second halves to a +4.8 in firsts—four quarters is just too many. There’s nothing wrong with putting a story down midway through and coming to your own grown-up conclusions—did a final desperate effort to send a game to double OT at least results in a valid field-goal attempt before the buzzer sounded? I wouldn’t know. Wasn’t watching. But probably.

Maybe the problem is calling them quarters, which leads to completists and sticklers demanding there be four of them. Hockey had the right idea dubbing them periods, which leaves all kind of room for flexibility. Three’s probably also overkill, but it’s a good start for a league that’s still open to experimentation.

Sound off in the comments below—do you think two halves is one too many? Or did you actually like how Game of Thrones ended?

Welcome to the Thread. Join in the conversation, start your own discussion, and share your thoughts. This is the Spurs community, your Spurs community. Thanks for being here.

Our community guidelines apply which should remind everyone to be cool, avoid personal attacks, not to troll and to watch the language.