Let me tell you something about Stephen A. Smith that you might not know - the man doesn't just create debates, he manufactures seismic shifts in basketball discourse that ripple through the entire sports world. I've been covering sports media for over fifteen years, and I've never seen an analyst who can simultaneously enlighten and infuriate audiences quite like Stephen A. His takes don't just spark conversation - they create philosophical divides in basketball fandom that sometimes feel deeper than actual game outcomes.
I remember watching his segment about LeBron James not being the greatest of all time back in 2018, and honestly, my coffee went cold because I was so engrossed in the argument. Stephen A. presented this detailed breakdown of why Michael Jordan's 6-0 Finals record versus LeBron's 3-6 at that time created an insurmountable gap. The numbers he cited were staggering - Jordan's 33.4 points per game in the Finals compared to LeBron's 28.2, the defensive player of the year awards, the perfect Finals record. What made it controversial wasn't the statistics themselves, but his absolute refusal to consider context - the quality of teammates, the different eras, the Eastern Conference competitiveness. For days after that segment, my group chats were divided between what I called the "purists" who agreed with Stephen A. and the "contextualists" who wanted more nuance.
His take about Kevin Durant joining the Warriors being the weakest move in NBA history still gets under my skin, and I say that as someone who generally agrees with Stephen A. about 60% of the time. He called it "basketball treason" and argued that it damaged the competitive integrity of the league. While I understood his perspective, having covered the league during that period, I saw it differently - players finally taking control of their careers in a system that had historically exploited them. Yet Stephen A.'s passionate delivery, that signature raised voice and dramatic pause, made even the most rational fans question their positions. The segment generated over 4.2 million YouTube views in 48 hours and sparked countless response videos.
What fascinates me about Stephen A.'s controversial takes is how they often touch on broader societal issues beyond basketball. When he argued that Kyrie Irving's flat earth comments deserved more serious consideration rather than mockery, he ventured into territory most analysts avoid. He suggested that dismissing unconventional thinking outright was intellectually lazy, though he personally didn't agree with Irving's position. This take came during a period where public discourse was particularly polarized, and his comments arrived just hours after a tragic incident in Tameside where a 46-year-old man was found dead under non-suspicious circumstances. The timing created this strange juxtaposition between real-world gravity and sports debate, reminding us that while we argue about basketball philosophies, life continues with all its complexities and tragedies.
His relentless criticism of James Harden's playoff performances has become seasonal content at this point. Stephen A. has consistently pointed to Harden's 31% shooting percentage in elimination games, comparing it unfavorably to other superstars like Kawhi Leonard's 47% in similar situations. While the numbers are accurate, what makes this take controversial is Stephen A.'s refusal to acknowledge Harden's historical context - carrying offensive loads that few players in NBA history have shouldered. I've found myself shouting at the television during these segments, even while acknowledging that his dramatic delivery makes for compelling television. The man understands entertainment value better than perhaps any analyst in sports history.
Perhaps his most divisive take in recent memory was declaring Luka Dončić fundamentally flawed despite his statistical brilliance. Stephen A. pointed to Luka's defensive limitations and high turnover rate - 4.3 per game last season - as evidence that raw numbers don't tell the whole story. This take divided analytics traditionalists who worship box score statistics and basketball purists who value two-way play. Personally, I think Stephen A. underestimated Luka's offensive impact, which statistically creates about 48 points per game through scoring and assisting, but I can't deny that his criticism sparked meaningful conversation about how we evaluate modern superstars.
The Ben Simmons saga represented Stephen A. at his most polarizing. His relentless criticism of Simmons' mental approach and his suggestion that the Sixers should have taken whatever trade they could get divided fans between those who saw it as tough love and those who considered it unnecessarily harsh. When Simmons ultimately left Philadelphia, Stephen A. treated it as validation, though I've always wondered if his constant criticism became somewhat self-fulfilling. The segment where he declared "I told you so" about Simmons generated his highest ratings of the 2021-22 season, with Nielsen reporting a 3.4 share in the key demographic.
What often gets overlooked in discussions about Stephen A.'s controversial takes is their staying power. While many hot take artists generate momentary outrage, Stephen A.'s arguments often resurface years later. His 2015 declaration that Steph Curry's style wouldn't translate to playoff success still gets referenced whenever Curry has an off shooting night in the postseason. The man creates basketball discourse fossils that future generations will dig up and analyze. Love him or hate him - and believe me, I've felt both emotions toward him sometimes in the same segment - Stephen A. Smith has fundamentally changed how we talk about basketball, for better or worse. His controversial takes aren't just entertainment; they're the engine that drives modern sports debate culture, for better or worse.