Mets back Carlos Mendoza during brutal 11-game losing streak: ‘Everyone has a part in this’ 43%

By Abbey Mastracco0%

4/20/2026, 11:30:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.5% saturation with 236 hits. Analysis detected 2,021 faulty-reasoning hits from 889 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.9% and a BS Rank of 43% (11,712 of 20,448 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.30% of the article peer group.

CHICAGO  Shortly after the Mets arrived in Chicago in the midst of a long losing streak, president of baseball operations David Stearns gave a vote of confidence to his embattled manager, Carlos Mendoza. 
“I think Mendy is doing a good job,” Stearns said Friday in the Wrigley Field dugout. 
“I think Mendy is putting players in positions to succeed, and we need to go out and play better.” 
The Mets have yet to play better. 
They were swept by the Chicago Cubs over the weekend, extending their losing streak to 11 games. 
It’s the longest such streak for the Mets since 2004, and if they lose the next game, scheduled for Tuesday night at Citi Field, they’ll match their 2002 streak. 
It’s fair to question the job the manager is doing during a losing streak, which is why Mendoza all but expected to have to face it Sunday afternoon, after the Mets lost 2-1 to the Cubs in 10 innings. 
“I know questions like this are going to come up, but I’m spending my energy on continuing to manage,” Mendoza said. 
“Continue to lead, continue to coach, continue to support. 
That’s what I’m doing right now  spending my energy on the things that I can control.” 
It does not appear that Mendoza has lost the clubhouse. 
“Mendy is our guy,” said shortstop Francisco Lindor, a key clubhouse leader. 
“He’s our leader. 
He’s in control, and he’s done a tremendous job. 
We just haven’t executed.” 
Closer Devin Williams seemed almost offended that he was asked about the management of the third-year skipper. 
When asked about Mendoza, the right-hander was emphatic in his message: This is not the manager’s fault. 
“He doesn’t swing a bat and he doesn’t throw a baseball,” Williams said. 
“We’ve been in a lot of these games. 
They’ve been close. 
I mean, him or somebody else is not affecting that.” 
Mendoza can only do so much with the roster built by Stearns and the front office. 
The roster isn’t going to change drastically anytime soon, so if you ask the guys in the clubhouse, another voice isn’t going to get any more out of the team than Mendoza’s. 
“If we’re not getting the job done, somebody else isn’t going to just magically flip a switch and we’re going to get it done,” Williams said. 
“He’s putting guys in good positions. 
We’re not performing.” 
Williams could have an issue with how he’s being used, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. 
Without a natural place to slot him in, Williams has pitched only twice in the last week, and had eight days of rest before pitching Wednesday in a loss to the Dodgers. 
The results haven’t been great: In seven games this season, he has a 7.11 ERA with two saves and one blown save. 
Still, Williams isn’t entertaining any arguments about his usage. 
“My job is to be there, be prepared and finish games when they get me the ball,” he said. 
“I didn’t do that today.” 
In today’s game, many in-game decisions aren’t even dictated by the manager, though it’s generally believed that Mendoza has a fair amount of autonomy in the dugout. 
Every decision is going to be scrutinized in New York, win or lose, regardless of who is making them. 
The decision to have Craig Kimbrel pitch to Nico Hoerner in the 10th, instead of walking him to set up a double play, could have been made by the analytics team. 
Or, it could have been made by a manager who can’t trust his middle infielders to turn one right now. 
If they had walked Hoerner and the next hitter, Michael Busch, it would have loaded the bases and set up a force-out at home. 
The Mets haven’t been adept at those plays this season. 
Ultimately, this seems to fall on Stearns. 
He’s the architect of the roster coached and managed by his handpicked staff. 
In his third season running the baseball operations department, he has effectively put his stamp on the team, doing so without emotion or an attachment to players of teams past. 
Now, the Mets are playing in a similar fashion  without emotion, or Grimace, or OMG, or anything remotely fun. 
The Mets aren’t supposed to be this buttoned up and corporate, yet the team on the field is playing like a group of co-workers who barely know each other and can’t wait for their next Teams meeting to end. 
Fans are losing their emotional attachment. 
Why would they want to show up for games when this is the product on the field? 
Where is the entertainment value? 
Who are the heroes they’re supposed to root for? 
There is no lack of talent, but the Mets are lacking quite a bit. 
They’re lacking an identity and chemistry on the field. 
The manager can’t provide those attributes; he can only help the team find them on their own. 
“It’s all of us,” said left-hander David Peterson. 
“We’re in this together. 
Everyone has a part in this, and we’ve got to stick together. 
Everyone has to take responsibility and accountability. 
We all need to look in the mirror and see what we can do better to help this team move in the right direction.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.2%Abbey Mastracco: 4.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias8.2%This article: 6.7%Abbey Mastracco: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 7.8%Abbey Mastracco: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 5.8%Abbey Mastracco: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 2.7%Abbey Mastracco: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias2.7%This article: 2.1%Abbey Mastracco: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 1.7%Abbey Mastracco: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Abbey Mastracco: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 2.9%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.9%This article: 3.9%Abbey Mastracco: 2.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 7.9%Abbey Mastracco: 3.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 26.5%Abbey Mastracco: 8.4%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias26.5%This article: 10.7%Abbey Mastracco: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias10.7%This article: 20.1%Abbey Mastracco: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error20.1%This article: 5.3%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias5.3%This article: 7.2%Abbey Mastracco: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Abbey Mastracco: 5.9%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Halo Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Abbey Mastracco: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.9%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man2.9%This article: 3.0%Abbey Mastracco: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority3.0%This article: 9.7%Abbey Mastracco: 3.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma9.7%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%Abbey Mastracco: 5.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 3.5%Abbey Mastracco: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring3.5%This article: 1.3%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon1.3%This article: 12.0%Abbey Mastracco: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion12.0%This article: 4.4%Abbey Mastracco: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 3.5%Abbey Mastracco: 4.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.4%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.4%This article: 2.9%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division2.9%This article: 4.3%Abbey Mastracco: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal4.3%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Abbey Mastracco: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.8%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading1.8%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Abbey Mastracco: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.8%Abbey Mastracco: 14.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 2.7%Abbey Mastracco: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abbey Mastracco: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Abbey Mastracco: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

889 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers31%attributed speech614writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Stearns • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Stearns • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageCarlos Mendoza • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCarlos Mendoza • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCarlos Mendoza • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageFrancisco Lindor • 12 words • 0.0% coverageFrancisco Lindor • 3 words • 0.0% coverageFrancisco Lindor • 9 words • 0.0% coverageFrancisco Lindor • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDevin Williams • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDevin Williams • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Peterson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Peterson • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Peterson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Peterson • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Peterson • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Stearns

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words13% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+45.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Stearns: 45.7%45.7%Biased Writer Voice-24.3 ptsWriter: 24.3%David Stearns: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%David Stearns: 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.