Can Cubs ‘chip away’ at Brewers’ division lead enough to boost front-office aggression at trade deadline? 35%

By Vinnie Duber50%

7/22/2026, 11:49:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 580 faulty-reasoning hits from 887 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.7% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,234 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

The Cubs will be buyers at the trade deadline. 
But as Nico Hoerner pointed out Wednesday, there are different levels of buying and selling. 
“There’s ‘buyer’ and ‘seller,’” the Cubs’ second baseman said, “but even within that, there’s a bit of a spectrum of aggressiveness that isn’t chosen by the players. 
But we obviously dictate that by being the best version of ourselves on the field.” 
Hoerner and his teammates won’t be the ones negotiating trades ahead of the Aug. 3 deadline. 
But they’ll obviously impact how team president Jed Hoyer acts. 
The Cubs were buyers last year, too, when Hoyer balked at the price of pitching and opted against a splashy move, despite adding multiple players. 
Their October did not last long. 
This year’s team woke up Wednesday six games back of the Brewers in the NL Central, giving it work to do to win the division and secure a first-round bye in the postseason. 
Their playoff tickets are far from officially punched, of course, but they started the day with more wins than all but four teams in baseball, owning the NL’s top wild-card spot. 
Would that be enough to spur Hoyer to the highest levels of trade-deadline aggression? 
“You have to go into the deadline,” Hoyer said last week, “you have to think about it analytically, you have to think about: Getting a bye is effectively winning a series and weakening your opponent in the next series. 
That’s a really big deal. 
“If the odds say that you can do that, that’s a different equation than if not. 
You have to be aware of those things, and we certainly will be.” 
What can happen to boost the chances of Hoyer & Co. going big at the deadline and acquiring the kind of player  let’s be honest, the kind of pitcher  that will make the Cubs a fearsome playoff contender? 
Do they need to significantly shrink the Brewers’ lead? 
With the deadline less than two weeks away, Cubs players believe themselves responsible for forcing any necessary changes to hearts and minds. 
“You want to put your team in the best place it could be for everyone involved to believe in what we have and what we can improve on,” Hoerner said. 
“We’re still trailing our division by a good bit, so that’s up to us to continue to chip away and play good baseball. 
We’ll see.” 
The team’s expectations have been at championship-level since before the season began. 
But a choppy first half featured an avalanche of pitching injuries, a monthlong offensive slump and a 10-game losing streak. 
They survived enough to head into the All-Star break a dozen games above .500. 
“That might not be exactly what we set out to do, but to still be within the margins despite a lot of things not going well is a sign of a strong group,” Hoerner said. 
“It’s up to us to make the most of that moving forward, but we’re in a good place to do that.” 
Those expectations haven’t changed. 
“Top to bottom, everyone seems to be all in and ready to play the best they can every time,” said righty pitcher Aaron Civale. 
“Everyone in here understands what the expectations are, and no one’s shying away from that.” 
As the deadline closes in, does Hoyer need to do any further fact-finding before deciding how aggressive to be? 
More than likely, individual trade opportunities will come with their own set of factors that play into that decision-making. 
But what if the Brewers don’t budge? 
What if they comfortably win the Central, like they did last year? 
What if the Cubs are destined to start the postseason as a wild-card team? 
Does that change what they’re capable of? 
And perhaps more importantly, does it change what Hoyer is willing to do? 
“I try to not get overly emotional about it. 
I try to stick to the numbers and make sure we’re doing things that make sense on paper,” Hoyer said. 
“But I think our position-playing group is really, really good. 
 That’s a group that could win a lot of games in October. 
“Obviously, the challenge for us has simply been pitching and pitching injuries. 
The whole team matters.” 
Pete Crow-Armstrong wowing Cubs brass, who see walk as good as extra-base hit for speedy center fielder 
His improved plate discipline and base-stealing speed has president Jed Hoyer suggesting that a walk to Crow-Armstrong is as good as a double, another example of his impact in an MVP-caliber season. 
New injuries, moves for fill-in help show Cubs still desperate for pitching as trade deadline nears 
Weathering a storm of midsummer injuries in the final weeks before the All-Star break didn’t clear the clouds on the health front for the Cubs, who continue to make small moves with an eye on survival ahead of opportunities for bigger splashes. 
Jameson Taillon returns from injured list, but so does tendency to allow long ball 
Taillon allowed a three-run homer to Riley Greene and a solo shot to Dillon Dingler to put the Cubs in an early hole. 
The hitters bailed him out and eventually tied it, but the Tigers scored three times in the 10th inning for an 8-6 victory. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Vinnie Duber: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.6%Vinnie Duber: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 1.6%Vinnie Duber: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.6%This article: 6.8%Vinnie Duber: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.5%Vinnie Duber: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Vinnie Duber: 10.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Vinnie Duber: 6.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias7.0%This article: 3.9%Vinnie Duber: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.5%Vinnie Duber: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Vinnie Duber: 4.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Vinnie Duber: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.8%Vinnie Duber: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma0.8%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.7%Vinnie Duber: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon1.7%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.4%Vinnie Duber: 2.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 8.0%Vinnie Duber: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.4%Vinnie Duber: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division4.4%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Vinnie Duber: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vinnie Duber: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

887 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers34%attributed speech583writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 30 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 35 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Civale • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Civale • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJed Hoyer • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nico Hoerner

79%flagged-word coverage
138 attributed words45% of attributed speech47% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.