The Red Sox have won 14 straight. They need 1 more to match an 80-year-old franchise record 12%

By Ken Powtak4% The Associated Press63%

7/21/2026, 6:45:35 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Primacy Effect, and Composition/Division, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 70 hits. Analysis detected 379 faulty-reasoning hits from 401 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.8% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,333 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

Eighty years ago, a Boston Red Sox team led by future Hall of Famer Ted Williams went on a 15-game winning streak early in the season that still stands as the longest in team history. 
On Tuesday night, the Red Sox can match that mark set by the 1946 club. 
Caleb Durbin hit a tiebreaking homer over the Green Monster with two outs in the eighth inning, and the Red Sox extended the second-longest winning streak in club history to 14 games, beating Baltimore 6-5 on Monday night to snap the Orioles’ season-best win streak at seven. 
“I’m trying not to, but I want it,” Durbin said about the possibility of tying the club record. 
“I can’t speak for anyone else. 
We really haven’t talked about it, but I want to make history here.” 
Durbin, who had a miserable start to the season after being picked up in an offseason trade with Milwaukee, connected on a 1-0 cutter from Tyler Wells, setting off a celebration by his teammates in front of Boston’s dugout. 
“It would mean a lot, for sure,” first baseman Willson Contreras said. 
“We are trying to play the same way every day. 
 If it happens, that would be great for us. 
We can celebrate that. 
If it doesn’t happen, you have to keep going.” 
Boston was 37-48 when the streak began and is now in position for a wild-card playoff berth. 
The Red Sox overcame three deficits on Monday. 
“I can’t imagine it being more electric than tonight,” Durbin said. 
“It might be. 
Tonight was awesome, though.” 
What was he thinking as he rounded the bases, heading toward a handful of players who were jumping up and down in front of the dugout? 
“There’s not a lot of times that you black out  as they say,’’ he said. 
“I think that was one of the moments where I didn’t know what was happening. 
I couldn’t tell you what I looked like running around the bases.” 
Contreras was one of the first players to jump over the railing onto the field after Durbin’s shot. 
“I felt like (the) playoffs, going to the World Series, to be honest,” he said. 
“Hopefully it happens. 
We’re on the way, but there’s a lot of season left, a lot of games to be played.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ken Powtak: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 12.7%Ken Powtak: 3.3%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Availability Heuristic12.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.2%Ken Powtak: 1.1%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Ken Powtak: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.2%Ken Powtak: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.5%Ken Powtak: 11.6%Cognoscenti: 3.4%Optimism Bias17.5%This article: 6.7%Ken Powtak: 1.8%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 1.0%Ken Powtak: 0.3%Cognoscenti: 5.0%Negativity Bias1.0%This article: 6.7%Ken Powtak: 2.7%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Ken Powtak: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 8.7%Ken Powtak: 2.3%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Primacy Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.7%Ken Powtak: 1.0%Cognoscenti: 1.7%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.0%Ken Powtak: 0.3%Cognoscenti: 5.4%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.7%Ken Powtak: 2.3%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division8.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Ken Powtak: 1.1%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Powtak: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

401 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers45%attributed speech222writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 3 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWillson Contreras • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Willson Contreras

83%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words45% of attributed speech35% 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.