Infamous MLB ballhawk Zack Hample was this close to catching George Lombard's first Yankees home run 57%

By Matt Ehalt72%

8/5/2026, 5:13:50 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 134 hits. Analysis detected 764 faulty-reasoning hits from 353 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.7% and a BS Rank of 57% (12,600 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.30% of the article peer group.

George Lombard Jr.'s storybook moment avoided a polarizing overcast. 
Infamous MLB ballhawk Zack Hample  whose home run-catching antics draw great scorn in some corners  came within inches of catching the Yankees' top prospect first career home run Tuesday night in The Bronx. 
Hample, standing in the aisle in the left-field seats at Yankee Stadium, reached to his right with his glove in an attempt to somehow corral the ball amid a sizable group of fellow ball-seekers during the Yankees' 2-0 win over the Cardinals. 
Lombard's solo blast appeared to hit at least one fan's hand inches away from Hample and instead landed in the glove of Bruce Roberts. 
Roberts, a Utah resident, reportedly attended the game with his family to celebrate his 12-year-old son Cash's birthday, according to The Athletic. 
He ultimately traded the ball for signed balls and a meet-and-greet with Lombard. 
“No-brainer,” Roberts told The Athletic. 
“They were really generous about it.” 
That Hample did not land the prized souvenir elicited celebration in some corners of social media due to his polarizing personality. 
Some do not approve of his actions, although even the biggest of haters would point out that he has a knack for somehow always being in the right spot. 
There's a skill in being able to somehow be in the right spot for a home run ball from a rookie who did not have a major-league hit to his name yet. 
But there are allegations from some against Hample about how he maneuvers his way into spots where he can land the ball, including whether it's fair game to move in front of children. 
Had Hample caught the ball, he may have had another awkward showdown with the Yankees. 
Hample caught Alex Rodriguez's 3000th hit in 2015  a home run  and initially would not return it to the ex-Yankees slugger despite attempts to broker a deal. 
He finally gave Rodriguez the ball in exchange for a $150,000 charity donation, plus a signed bat and ball, according to MLB.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Matt Ehalt: 2.1%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.2%California Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Matt Ehalt: 4.8%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.9%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias11.0%This article: 9.1%Matt Ehalt: 1.7%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias9.1%This article: 15.9%Matt Ehalt: 10.0%California Post: 9.9%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Matt Ehalt: 2.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias1.7%This article: 4.2%Matt Ehalt: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 38.0%Matt Ehalt: 11.9%California Post: 15.4%Negativity Bias38.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.7%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Matt Ehalt: 1.0%California Post: 1.5%In-Group Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 4.1%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.6%California Post: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Matt Ehalt: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.8%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Matt Ehalt: 1.8%California Post: 2.4%Ad Hominem14.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Matt Ehalt: 2.5%California Post: 4.1%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.2%Matt Ehalt: 0.5%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope4.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.1%Matt Ehalt: 3.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization9.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.9%Matt Ehalt: 0.7%California Post: 1.3%Bandwagon5.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.9%California Post: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.3%Matt Ehalt: 1.1%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof9.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.0%California Post: 3.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 8.2%Matt Ehalt: 1.0%California Post: 0.1%No True Scotsman8.2%This article: 9.3%Matt Ehalt: 2.4%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.4%Matt Ehalt: 11.4%California Post: 12.5%Biased Writer Voice20.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 0.0%California Post: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Ehalt: 1.6%California Post: 5.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

353 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.1%attributed speech342writer words
Selected voice

Bruce Roberts

55%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.1 ptsWriter: 21.1%Bruce Roberts: 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.