When one thinks about listening to the post-game analysis of their favorite players, who do people usually tune into? Today, we have a slew of options, ranging from “Inside the NBA” to “Old Man and the Three.” But before all of them, it was Stephen A Smith.
Advertisement
The New Yorker was a fan of the sport from a young age and got into playing it. He was passable in high school, which got him a call from Winston-Salem State for their college team. It was a proud moment for him because the coach, Harold Kitt, offered him a scholarship based on his merit.
What was that merit about? Stephen A. had a reputation for being an excellent shooter and was brought on for that purpose. But in the first game, he barely shot the ball during the first half. He played passively, not being involved in the game. Call it nerves or something else, but he could not show his full potential.
Kitt pulled him aside and egged him on to shoot. What followed after that pep talk was nothing short of miraculous. According to the story, he shot 17 straight 3s, earning him a permanent place in the squad!
And that is where the honeymoon ended for SAS and Harold Kitt.
Stephen A Smith is one of the worst college players ever – joining his ex-cohost Skip Bayless
Don’t let those numbers fool you, because Stephen A Smith was worse than the worst-rated NBA player today. His 17 threes may have gotten him a shot at the next game, but here are his final year statistics:
Those are ludicrous, and this is the same guy who complains that NBA players cannot shoot. Neither could he. All he could shoot was venom toward the coach who believed in him. SAS dared to rip into the coach, who had recommended him for a scholarship. Poor Harold Kitt!
The other person who averaged similar stat lines was the much older Skip Bayless. He averaged a whopping 1.4 ppg, but this time in high school. He did not even make it to the college scene, skipping it entirely for communication.
Should the two highest-paid NBA analysts, who can barely play basketball, change their ways?
Do Analysts who have such atrocious stats have a right to criticize players who could run rings around them in their sleep?
There is no line that the NBA analysts think they should not cross while criticizing a player. The best example of this is Russell Westbrook, who’s been called many names by these so-called “torchbearers” of the game. Calling him a vampire and a Westbrick while all SAS and Bayless have ever shot are bricks and have been toxic their whole lives is a stretch.
No, they do not and cannot criticize players for their form. Sure, every basketball player is overpaid, but isn’t that decided by the market? The base salary today is what Michael Jordan earned when he was at the peak of his powers. Magic Johnson made less than the vet minimum today.
Analysts from the past should introspect and then decide to say something hurtful. Both old heads averaged 1.5 PPG at their peak; NBA players usually have that number in their steals column.
There are levels to this game, and the old media needs a wake-up call. You are only being watched because you make controversial statements, not because you have any sort of credible baseball knowledge. Just ask Mark Cuban; he’ll let the world know what he thinks of you.
Also Read: How Many Career Points Does Stephen Curry have? Warriors Guard’s Rank on the All-time Scoring List
