Engadget42%

MLB bans using dugout iPads for AI-powered in-game strategy calls 79%

By Anna Washenko55%

7/16/2026, 8:26:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Slippery Slope, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 43% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,112 faulty-reasoning hits from 344 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.3% and a BS Rank of 79% (4,701 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.50% of the article peer group.

It appears the urge to turn all critical thinking over to AI has not escaped Major League Baseball teams. 
Regular baseball viewers have become accustomed to seeing players and staff huddled around tablets in the dugout. 
The expectation is that the devices are used for reviewing performance and maybe crunching last-minute stats, but apparently MLB officials have intervened to prevent teams from using the hardware for running generative AI. 
League officials have taken the unusual step of making a mid-season policy change to crack down on the use of custom apps that would take over "recommendations regarding substitutions, pitch calling, and other in-game decisions traditionally made by players and coaches." 
*The Athletic* reported that the news was delivered via a memo from the commissioner's office on June 11. 
Sources told the publication as many as a third of teams were using tablets for these unintended purposes, although no clubs will be facing any punishment after an MLB review determined that all organizations were now compliant with the new rules, which took effect yesterday. 
In-game iPad use was subjected to increased restrictions after a sign-stealing scandal surfaced in 2021. 
In the intervening years, teams began pushing for more lenience, which the commission is now walking back. 
"Gotta stop the cheating before there's cheating now," an unnamed front office official told *The Athletic*. 
Baseball is heaven for stat nerds, and crunching a lot of data quickly is one of the best uses for AI. 
Sure, there may be a statistically proven best decision at any given time, but once you throw physical, mental and emotional performance into the mix, the mathematically correct answer may not in fact be the best one. 
Tech is great as a backup, like with the new ABS system, but using it as a replacement for brains and intuition sounds like a quick way to suck all the joy out of the sport. 
A game of baseball is not identical to a game of chess, and we shouldn't encourage it to be. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.4%Anna Washenko: 1.4%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.4%This article: 10.8%Anna Washenko: 1.7%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias10.8%This article: 12.5%Anna Washenko: 6.4%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect12.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 17.4%Anna Washenko: 0.9%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Anna Washenko: 5.7%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 16.0%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias16.0%This article: 35.5%Anna Washenko: 9.3%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias35.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.8%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.0%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias18.0%This article: 4.9%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 10.2%Anna Washenko: 2.2%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma10.2%This article: 22.4%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope22.4%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Anna Washenko: 9.4%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.6%Anna Washenko: 4.2%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion16.6%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.3%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.0%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.6%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.5%Anna Washenko: 0.7%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature5.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.1%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal13.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 43.0%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)43.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Anna Washenko: 5.0%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 4.7%Anna Washenko: 1.8%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 22.4%Anna Washenko: 11.4%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice22.4%This article: 20.1%Anna Washenko: 1.6%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination20.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.9%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

344 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.2%attributed speech326writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageThe Athletic • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Athletic

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.6 ptsWriter: 23.6%The Athletic: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-21.2 ptsWriter: 21.2%The Athletic: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%The Athletic: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%The Athletic: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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