STLPR0%

Join the ‘tarps off’ movement: Cardinals create new high-energy fan section at Busch Stadium 3%

By Rob Edwards0%

5/20/2026, 12:08:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Actor-Observer Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 309 faulty-reasoning hits from 206 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 13.3% and a BS Rank of 3% (21,406 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.80% of the article peer group.

The St. 
Louis Cardinals are capitalizing on the “tarps off” trend at Busch Stadium. 
The club has created an official high-energy fan section in the upper right field bleachers. 
Any ticketed fan, regardless of their seat location, will be allowed to participate. 
Shirts are optional. 
The “tarps off” trend began organically last week during the Cardinals’ series against the Kansas City Royals. 
A group of club baseball players from Stephen F. 
Austin State University showed up in right field, chanting, waving shirts and eventually celebrating by taking their shirts off. 
The group caught the attention of the Cardinals, in particular manager Oliver Marmol, who bought tickets to bring them back for the next game. 
The Stephen F. 
Austin team, which was in town for a multi-day baseball tournament, returned Tuesday night for a final evening of shirtless celebrations. 
Starting with Wednesday night’s game against the Pirates, any fan with a ticket at Busch Stadium will be invited to sit in the right field bleachers and participate in the new high-energy section. 
The Cardinals aren’t requiring fans to go shirtless and say the decision whether to go “tarps off” is up to them. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%Rob Edwards: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect29.1%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Rob Edwards: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 4.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Rob Edwards: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.7%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias11.7%This article: 6.8%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Rob Edwards: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.2%Rob Edwards: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.8%Rob Edwards: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon6.8%This article: 9.2%Rob Edwards: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.3%Rob Edwards: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.4%Rob Edwards: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal19.4%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%Rob Edwards: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.8%Rob Edwards: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice6.8%This article: 5.8%Rob Edwards: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

206 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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