KQED⁠61%

PWHL to Choose San José as Its 4th Expansion Market, AP Sources Say ⁠4%

By John Wawrow⁠0% The Associated Press⁠63%

5/18/2026, 7:49:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Recency Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 112 faulty-reasoning hits from 222 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠4% (20,495 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.70% of the article peer group.

The PWHL is bringing women’s hockey to the Bay Area by choosing San José as its fourth and final market during the league’s latest round of expansion, two people with knowledge of the discussions told The Associated Press on Friday. 
The people spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because the league had not made an announcement. 
The Hockey News first reported the development earlier in the day. 
With the addition of San José, the PWHL increases to 12 teams, doubling the league’s size since it started in 2024 and broadening its geographical reach. 
The city is home to the NHL’s Sharks and gives the league a four-team foothold in the West. 
Las Vegas is another expansion market, and Seattle and Vancouver joined the league last year. 
The team would likely play at the Sharks’ arena, the SAP Center. 
The PWHL also added franchises in Detroit and Hamilton, Ontario, over the past two weeks. 
Executive vice president of business operations Amy Scheer previously told the AP that the league’s priorities include geographic diversity and reducing travel time between markets. 
Scheer also said the PWHL has been exploring splitting into two conferences or divisions. 
The PWHL’s original six franchises are Boston, New York, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Minnesota. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%John Wawrow: 0.4%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%John Wawrow: 8.2%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 1.3%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.3%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 16.0%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 1.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%John Wawrow: 4.9%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.3%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 1.6%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.6%John Wawrow: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote26.6%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 5.3%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wawrow: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

222 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech172writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageThe Hockey News • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Scheer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Scheer • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Amy Scheer

0%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words78% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%Amy Scheer: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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