OutKick89%

Mercury coach claims Alyssa Thomas suspension was based on 'social media screenshots' after Caitlin Clark foul 67%

By Jon Root0%

6/27/2026, 1:30:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 34.5% saturation with 298 hits. Analysis detected 1,951 faulty-reasoning hits from 864 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.3% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,393 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.20% of the article peer group.

Alyssa Thomas' thug-like play, punching Caitlin Clark in the throat and kneeing her in the groin, is indefensible. 
The league thought so, and so does the sane general public, who saw the WNBA’s biggest star mugged on the court like she was the victim of some schoolyard bullying. 
That didn’t stop Phoenix Mercury Head Coach Nate Tibbetts from defending Alyssa Thomas and attempting to throw the league office under the bus for their decision to suspend her for one game. 
Prior to the Mercury’s game on Saturday against the WNBA’s newest expansion team, the Toronto Tempo, Tibbetts took the podium to address the suspension. 
"First off, the Mercury organization would like to let AT know that she is 100% supported." 
He didn’t mince words from the start. 
He wanted the media and public to know that he, his players and the organization stand behind Thomas' unsportsmanlike actions. 
Tibbetts then aimed to provide a defense of the 13-year veteran through a supposed positive league-wide reputation saying, "People in this league know who AT is. 
She’s a competitor. 
She’s a winner. 
And she’s tough." 
WNBA SUSPENDS ALYSSA THOMAS FOR 'RECKLESSLY' HITTING CAITLIN CLARK IN THROAT DURING SCRAMBLE 
Most importantly, he addressed the claim that Thomas cheap-shotted Clark, which fans and Fever Head Coach Stephanie White have presented since their game on Wednesday: "The one thing she is not, is cheap." 
He then added, "I respect Steph White. 
I got to know her through USA basketball. 
I respect her as a coach and as a person. 
I understand her sticking up for Caitlin in this situation. 
But, to say that we had two cheapshots in that game, to me, is ridiculous." 
Tibbetts then directly addressed his "disappointment with the suspension process" and the "leaders in the W." 
Tibbetts staked the bold claim that "This was not a thorough investigation," while explaining that he was upset that neither he, Alyssa Thomas, nor the security team were interviewed or asked to give their thoughts on the situation. 
This is an odd thing to be upset about. 
It’s as if talking to a biased party of Thomas’ peers would provide any beneficial assistance in the league’s decision. 
"The people involved were not questioned at all," Tibbetts stated. 
The video evidence of the flagrant foul speaks for itself. 
If I understand him correctly, it sounds as if he was expecting to be a part of the decision process, which is laughable. 
As Tibbetts was wrapping up his almost three-minute rant, he made sure to take a shot at fans defending Caitlin Clark online, seemingly making the claim that the social media noise surrounding the play led to Thomas’ suspension. 
"I’m a part of the referee task force," Tibbetts said. 
"The goal is to clean up our game, but I do think it’s important not to rely on social media screenshots. 
This is a slippery slope." 
CAITLIN CLARK TALKS 'PRIVILEGE' BEING WHITE WNBA PLAYER, DENIES FEELING TARGETED BECAUSE OF HER RACE 
This is where the anti–Caitlin Clark bias that we've seen from many of the Mercury's players and coaches over the past few days became clear. 
Tibbetts said, almost smugly, "Let's don't base [calls] on generational talent, fan base involvement, All-Star-level players. 
Let's don't base it on... white players or black players." 
There it is. 
In my view, that's gaslighting. 
He appears to be implying  without offering evidence  that Caitlin Clark receives favorable treatment because she is a generational talent with a massive fan base and because she is white. 
At the same time, his comments could be interpreted as suggesting that Thomas's suspension may have been influenced by the fact that she is Black. 
That's how I interpret his statement, and it echoes arguments I've heard from commentators such as Jemele Hill and Monica McNutt since Clark entered the league. 
In my opinion, it relies on racial insinuation rather than evidence. 
Tibbetts ended his statement saying, "Even if the roles were reversed in this situation, make the storyline, the storyline, and the suspension the same." 
The fact that so many of Thomas's teammates, along with the Mercury's associate head coach and head coach, have shown unwavering support for a blatantly unsportsmanlike play against the league's biggest star suggests they aren't viewing the incident objectively. 
They seem unwilling to acknowledge that a play like this  regardless of the player involved  warrants a suspension. 
Furthermore, the fact that Caitlin Clark has been assessed or been the target of flagrant fouls at such a high rate should be a cause for concern. 
It's something the league should address, call out and punish appropriately. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
This felt a lot like what we’ve seen from Democrats over the last decade trying to downplay crime and lawlessness in our cities across the country. 
It’s disingenuous argumentation that devalues legitimate issues that need addressing and accountability. 
The Indiana Fever take on the Los Angeles Sparks on Saturday night at 8 p.m. 
ET without their superstar Caitlin Clark, who is out with a back injury sustained in their matchup against the Mercury. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.6%Jon Root: 10.1%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias18.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Jon Root: 2.2%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 3.5%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Jon Root: 3.6%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Jon Root: 2.7%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 29.6%Jon Root: 10.0%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias29.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 1.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Jon Root: 3.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 2.9%Jon Root: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.9%This article: 4.5%Jon Root: 5.3%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Jon Root: 2.4%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Jon Root: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.3%Jon Root: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Jon Root: 2.3%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem9.6%This article: 4.4%Jon Root: 2.8%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man4.4%This article: 2.1%Jon Root: 1.8%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority2.1%This article: 3.5%Jon Root: 2.7%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 3.0%Jon Root: 2.1%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Jon Root: 10.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 3.0%Jon Root: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring3.0%This article: 3.5%Jon Root: 1.9%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon3.5%This article: 8.6%Jon Root: 5.9%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 4.6%Jon Root: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.8%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.7%Jon Root: 2.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof11.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Jon Root: 1.9%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Jon Root: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.4%Jon Root: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity5.4%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Root: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.1%Jon Root: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote16.1%This article: 1.5%Jon Root: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 34.5%Jon Root: 26.4%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice34.5%This article: 4.5%Jon Root: 4.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination4.5%This article: 3.5%Jon Root: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.5%This article: 3.0%Jon Root: 6.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 0.9%Jon Root: 2.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.9%

864 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech709writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageNate Tibbetts • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nate Tibbetts

65%flagged-word coverage
155 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.0 ptsWriter: 42.0%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.0 ptsWriter: 17.3%Nate Tibbetts: 10.3%10.3%Indoctrination-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%Nate Tibbetts: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.