analysis of espn brawl analysis
i’ve lost complete respect for stephan a. smith as an analyst, not that i had much to begin with. part if his analysis:
smith: “(jackson should have had a longer suspension than artest because artest was provoked)".
this is completely ludicrous.
billy hunter, head of the players association is almost as clueless, though at least it’s understandable that he would be posturing.
hunter: “(the suspension to artest was much too long. 30 games would have been more reasonable.)”
a little more. marc jackson is a comforting speaker with a comforting face, but his analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
he’s simply not acknowledging the gravity of the situation.
tolbert as no “street cred", but he’s the guy on that network who does the most logical analysis.
props to david stern for how he handled the suspensions, and the press conference. eloquent, smart, and excellent perspective.
i’ll discuss all of this in more detail on tomorrow’s podcast.