This is the type of thing that I can’t stand about ESPN. Bringing in people that know nothing about a sport and having them comment on it. If they had brought Barry Melrose in to discuss basketball, I would be just as irritated as when they brought Stephen A. Smith in to talk about hockey. You pay certain analysts to discuss specific sports for a reason.
On this segment, Stephen A. Smith was asked which is more impressive, the Miami Heat’s 14 game win streak or the Chicago Blackhawks 22 game point streak. Smith went off about how the streak wasn’t valid because the Blackhawks had three ties. First and foremost, the question wasn’t about a Blackhawks win streak, it was about a point streak, the graphic even said so. Secondly, they’re not ties, they’re overtime losses, which if Smith heard that would probably get even more upset than he was. Thirdly, why is this even being compared? You can’t compare a win streak to a point streak, they’re two completely different animals, and they’re being done by teams in two completely different sports. This was just another tactic by ESPN to try and get some ratings by saying something controversial that would undoubtedly upset someone.
Stephen A. did have some great quotes though:
“Excuse me … it wasn’t 21 games. It was really an 8-game streak. There are three ties. I’m sorry, that doesn’t count.”
“I’m not into the tie business. This isn’t soccer. OK?”
“And and and and and and the hockey stuff, I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”
“Not only that: If you go to the overtime you get a point. If you win the game, you get a couple of points. I’m sorry, you want a cookie? Last time I checked, when you take to the ice, it’s to actually win. It’s not to tie. So I don’t get all of this stuff. Hockey’s clearly all about points, because if you go to overtime 20 times you get 20 points. I don’t understand that. You either win or you lose in sports.”
As I said, there are no ties in hockey, there haven’t been since 2004. But, I do agree with Smith’s take on the NHL’s points, which is sad that a basketball analyst says something about hockey that no other analyst says. I fully believe that you should get 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win and 0 points for a loss, whether in reguation, OT or a shootout. So kudos to Smith for saying something right. Unfortunately for him, he lost all credibility when discussing hockey again when he mentioned that he didn’t know Columbus had a hockey team, when they’ve had one for 13 years. Hopefully ESPN recognizes their poor decision and doesn’t have Smith discuss hockey again anytime soon. The only thing that would have made this segment worse would have been Skip Bayless making a cameo appearance.
UPDATE: They brought in Barry Melrose to discuss which streak was more impressive with Stephen A. Smith.
http://youtu.be/OmlbRyG308E
