Valkyries score place as championship contenders 51%

By Marisa Ingemi61%

7/25/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.8% saturation with 380 hits. Analysis detected 1,753 faulty-reasoning hits from 931 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.8% and a BS Rank of 51% (10,735 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

The Golden State Valkyries are in second place in the WNBA going into the midway part of the season’s All-Star break. 
At 19-8, they lead the Las Vegas Aces by half a game and are just 2.5 games behind the first-place Minnesota Lynx. 
Though the Valkyries were expected to make a leap after qualifying for the postseason in their first year, they have surpassed most expectations and are now considered a legitimate championship contender. 
That means at the nine-day-long break, the Valkyries have several candidates for the league’s top awards. 
There is still a lot of basketball to be played in the two months that starts with a road game at Phoenix on July 29, but Golden State is already in a good position because of the following. 
Awards aren’t voted on until the end of the season by a panel of league writers and broadcasters. 
**Coach of the Year: Natalie Nakase**: While Cheryl Reeve’s efforts to lead Minnesota to first in the WNBA even without Napheesa Collier’s presence has been impressive, what Nakase has accomplished with the Valkyries might be even more so. 
Nakase’s strength has been to get the most out of her players, even if they aren’t stars on other teams. 
That’s how starting point guard Veronica Burton ended up the Most Improved player in the league last season, and how the Valkyries are one of the best teams this year even with subpar offensive numbers. 
Nakase has gotten elite play from her bench, which leads the league in scoring among reserve units, and has utilized Gabby Williams and Kiah Stokes perfectly. 
She has also spearheaded the league’s best defensive unit, holding teams to 78.6 points per contest. 
**MVP: Gabby Williams: **It’s unlikely that Williams actually wins the MVP award, but she should be in legitimate conversations. 
Golden State is much more dominant offensively when Williams is on the floor, and she is a huge part of why they are second in the standings going into the All-Star break. 
She leads the Valkyries with 14.8 points per game, 12.7 field goal attempts per contest, but that scoring number is still 27th in the WNBA. 
Her candidacy is more to do with her two-way ability than any offensive dominance. 
The top candidates are Las Vegas center A’ja Wilson and Minnesota rookie point guard Olivia Miles.  
But Williams probably deserves some votes in the top five after her first half, and anything can happen in the next portion of the season 
**Defensive player of the year: Williams and Kiah Stokes: **Williams likely has a better case for the league’s top defensive player. 
Center Kiah Stokes, too, could be in the conversation. 
She is second in the WNBA with 1.8 blocks per contest, only behind Wilson, and has led Golden State’s league-leading paint defense, stopping teams from scoring around the rim. 
Both are near locks for the league’s all defensive first team, barring something wild in the second half. 
But either one could emerge as a little more than that, too. 
Williams usually takes on the toughest defensive assignment and leads the team with 1.7 steals per game. 
She has shut down the toughest players in the league this year, and opponents are shooting 31.6 percent from the field when she is the primary defender, the third-best figure in the league among players who defend at least five possessions per game, according to The Ringer. 
**Most improved: Kaitlyn Chen: **Chen has an argument for the league’s most improved player, but there is a lot of competition, including from former Valkyries guard Carla Leite. 
With expansion Portland, she has excelled as a starting point guard to become one of the most reliable scorers at the position in the league. 
Her teammate, center Megan Gustafson, has averaged 12.6 points and 3.8 rebounds per game while shooting 55.4 percent from the field and 40.0 percent from 3-point range after getting inconsistent time with Las Vegas. 
Dallas forward Jessica Shephard is the front runner with 14.6 points, 11.5 rebounds, and 5.3 assists per game as a starter for the Wings after being a role player in Minnesota. 
But Chen’s improvement this season is remarkable in its own right. 
She averages 7.7 points per game, up from her 2.0 a season ago, while shooting an impressive 57.3 percent from the field and 42.9 percent from 3-point range. 
She went from a late-game, cleanup third guard to arguably the best backup point guard in the WNBA in less than a season. 
She has been a sparkplug off the bench for a Valkyries team that needs a backup to Veronica Burton, who averages nearly 30 minutes per game. 
Her ability to score from 3-point distance and around the rim has made her an ideal candidate for the award. 
**Sixth player of the year: Janelle Salaun: **After the Aces let go of Chennedy Carter, Salaun immediately became the front runner for this award. 
She leads all bench players in scoring (12.8 points per game) and field goal attempts (9.8 per game) off the bench and is one of the most consistent players on the court to close out games.  
The 24-year-old probably starts on most teams, but on the defensive-minded Valkyries, she comes off the bench to defend against second units, is asked to play beyond her 6-foot-2 height and is still one of the most lethal shooters in the league, as the lone bench player named to the WNBA’s three-point contest this weekend.  
Her 345 total points off the bench over 27 games are 132 more than the next player behind her. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Marisa Ingemi: 6.9%Mission Local: 2.7%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 3.3%Marisa Ingemi: 1.1%Mission Local: 0.9%Anchoring Bias3.3%This article: 7.1%Marisa Ingemi: 2.4%Mission Local: 2.9%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 3.9%Marisa Ingemi: 1.3%Mission Local: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Marisa Ingemi: 5.5%Mission Local: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias6.2%This article: 5.2%Marisa Ingemi: 1.7%Mission Local: 4.7%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.8%Marisa Ingemi: 6.8%Mission Local: 2.3%Optimism Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 5.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 3.7%Mission Local: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.8%Marisa Ingemi: 0.9%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.8%This article: 4.1%Marisa Ingemi: 1.4%Mission Local: 1.1%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Marisa Ingemi: 11.4%Mission Local: 1.4%Halo Effect20.1%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Marisa Ingemi: 1.9%Mission Local: 1.1%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 3.0%Marisa Ingemi: 1.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Marisa Ingemi: 3.0%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 4.7%Marisa Ingemi: 1.6%Mission Local: 1.6%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.6%Marisa Ingemi: 9.5%Mission Local: 4.8%Hasty Generalization17.6%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.9%Marisa Ingemi: 1.8%Mission Local: 0.9%Bandwagon1.9%This article: 4.1%Marisa Ingemi: 1.4%Mission Local: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.3%Marisa Ingemi: 6.0%Mission Local: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Marisa Ingemi: 0.9%Mission Local: 0.5%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 2.5%Marisa Ingemi: 0.8%Mission Local: 2.7%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Marisa Ingemi: 2.0%Mission Local: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Marisa Ingemi: 0.4%Mission Local: 0.2%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Marisa Ingemi: 0.5%Mission Local: 1.0%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 40.8%Marisa Ingemi: 18.9%Mission Local: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice40.8%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marisa Ingemi: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Marisa Ingemi: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.9%

931 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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