OutKick⁠97%

Shaq Has Blunt Explanation For Why He Doesn't Text Any Current NBA Players ⁠58%

By Matt Reigle⁠91%

4/19/2026, 1:30:41 AM

Topics: Nba, Celebrity
Keywords: Shaquille Oneal, Nba, Bkt

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 19.9% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 617 faulty-reasoning hits from 366 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (8,571 of 20,368 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

You'd think that an NBA legend like Shaquille O'Neal would constantly be trading texts with the current crop of NBA players. 
I mean, he's a legend. 
Who better to ask about navigating a career in the NBA than him? 
But you'd be mistaken, and there's a pretty simple reason why Shaq isn't one to play digital pen-pals with current players. 
In an interview with The New York Post, Shaq was asked who he keeps in touch with, and he didn't hold back. 
"None. 
I don't like athletes or superstars because they're a--holes," he said. 
"I denounced myself from being a celebrity about 10 years ago because those people are weird. 
I'm not weird." 
I get that… but I didn't realize you could denounce celebrity status or that Shaq had done this. 
In fact, I was under the impression that he was still a celebrity. 
I mean, the man has gummy candies in the shape of his head. 
They don't just give those to anyone. 
If they did, I'd have a giant sack of my own gummy heads sitting in my pantry right now. 
I thought this was such an interesting take because it's pretty common for former players — especially ones who have moved into a media role — but I find it weirdly refreshing to hear someone with the opposite approach. 
In fact, that tells you that when Shaq gives an opinion on a current player or situation, he's not couching it because he'll have to face a barrage of angry text messages. 
Nope, he can call balls and strikes with impunity. 
Plus, he won't have a--holes blowing up his phone, which is always nice. 
Shaq also said that he just wants to be a regular guy, and that's how he likes it when he shows up to the tech store tm:rw which he is a partner in. 
"Whenever I come, it's me and two guys. 
No entourage. 
There's nothing but homeboys coming in," he said. 
"We come in here, we take care of business… We sign autographs. 
We treat people with honor and respect… I want to be a regular guy." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Matt Reigle: 6.4%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.9%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Matt Reigle: 5.9%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 18.3%Matt Reigle: 2.3%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic18.3%This article: 8.7%Matt Reigle: 1.4%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 5.8%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 10.8%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.5%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Matt Reigle: 2.0%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Matt Reigle: 5.4%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.2%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Matt Reigle: 9.2%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 0.8%Matt Reigle: 4.3%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.8%This article: 4.4%Matt Reigle: 2.0%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.2%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 8.4%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 2.1%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Matt Reigle: 6.9%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.3%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.0%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 4.2%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Matt Reigle: 0.6%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.5%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 2.2%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.7%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.9%Matt Reigle: 2.1%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 5.7%Matt Reigle: 2.1%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.2%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.0%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.9%Matt Reigle: 11.1%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization19.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.1%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.9%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Matt Reigle: 10.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 12.6%Matt Reigle: 1.0%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question12.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.2%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.0%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.3%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.6%Matt Reigle: 0.5%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature3.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.2%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.4%Matt Reigle: 6.8%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal16.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Matt Reigle: 1.5%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.0%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.9%Matt Reigle: 1.0%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity4.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.5%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.0%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 2.2%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.7%Matt Reigle: 1.0%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 8.7%Matt Reigle: 19.7%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 1.5%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 0.5%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Reigle: 2.9%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

366 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech291writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 1 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 11 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 16 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 8 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 2 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 8 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 12 words • 0.0% coverageShaquille O'Neal • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shaquille O'Neal

69%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words100% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Shaquille O'Neal: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Shaquille O'Neal: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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