Gothamist77%

The Knicks have won 2 straight and MSG tickets now cost (way) more than your rent 39%

By Ryan Kost75%

6/6/2026, 8:00:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 54.6% saturation with 281 hits. Analysis detected 1,591 faulty-reasoning hits from 515 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.3% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,508 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.70% of the article peer group.

If you were holding out hope of catching the New York Knicks play in the NBA Finals at Madison Square Garden, it’s going to cost you. 
With the Knicks in the Finals for the first time since 1999, tickets were already in historic demand. 
Now that they’ve taken the first two games of the series, ticket prices at home are entering the stratosphere. 
The get-in price for Game 3 on Monday  meaning the minimum price to get in the door following Friday’s win  is $10,085, according to TickPick, a no-fee ticket marketplace. 
Game 4 on Wednesday isn't any better, at $11,814. 
Compare that to the $600 get-in price for Game 2 last night in San Antonio, that’s nearly 20 times higher. 
Of course, those are current asking prices. 
Surely the average ticket price, which accounts for earlier and cheaper sales, tells a more reasonable story? 
Not exactly. 
The average ticket price for Games 3 and 4 at MSG are $6,487 and $7,163 respectively, according to data from TickPick. 
That’s the most expensive average price ever recorded for an NBA final. 
The next closest would be Game 5 of the 2024 Celtics-Mavericks series at $2,072, less than a third the price. 
Every other game in the all-time top 10 came in under $1,800. 
In fact, MSG prices are approaching Super Bowl territory, which TickPick’s Matt Ferrel called “extremely unusual” for a basketball game. 
According to StubHub, Monday's Game 3 is actually outpacing demand for each of the last two Super Bowls  running about 4% higher than Super Bowl LX in February and roughly 11% higher than the Eagles-Chiefs game the year before. 
And keep in mind, unlike the Super Bowl, this is a series. 
If it goes seven games, three of them will be in New York, each potentially commanding Super Bowl-level minimums. 
A fair number of Knicks fans capitalized on the price differential between New York and San Antonio and flew south. 
Ferrel said 33% of buyers for Game 2 in San Antonio came from New York and New Jersey zip codes. 
“It quite literally is more affordable to have flown to San Antonio, gone to Game 1 and 2, got a hotel, enjoyed San Antonio, did some touring and fly back, than it is to step foot in Madison Square Garden, where you may live,” he said. 
Why the gulf between the two cities? 
Ferrel said he can't make rational sense of the raw numbers, but he can explain the gap. 
The Spurs have won more recently and they represent a smaller market, to start, “whereas New York just has everything stacked for it.” 
The Knicks haven't been on this stage in 27 years, he noted. 
Prices will keep moving as the series goes on, Ferrel said. 
“There's such pent-up demand in New York for the Knicks,” Ferrel said. 
“I mean, as a New York resident the Knicks really do represent the city in a way that no other sporting franchise in the city does.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Ryan Kost: 1.5%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 15.7%Ryan Kost: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias15.7%This article: 15.9%Ryan Kost: 3.6%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic15.9%This article: 7.8%Ryan Kost: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 1.1%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Ryan Kost: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 31.7%Ryan Kost: 7.1%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect31.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Ryan Kost: 3.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 5.0%Ryan Kost: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 6.6%Ryan Kost: 10.4%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 3.9%Ryan Kost: 2.0%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 6.8%Ryan Kost: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Ryan Kost: 1.9%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Ryan Kost: 2.3%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Ryan Kost: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias6.0%This article: 5.6%Ryan Kost: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 1.4%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Ryan Kost: 6.0%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 2.3%Ryan Kost: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma2.3%This article: 3.7%Ryan Kost: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Ryan Kost: 2.6%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.4%Ryan Kost: 5.7%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion21.4%This article: 5.6%Ryan Kost: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 3.7%Ryan Kost: 1.3%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.9%Ryan Kost: 3.6%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 5.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman5.0%This article: 54.6%Ryan Kost: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)54.6%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground3.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.3%Ryan Kost: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading3.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.0%Ryan Kost: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote15.0%This article: 6.4%Ryan Kost: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 16.1%Ryan Kost: 2.5%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice16.1%This article: 5.0%Ryan Kost: 2.9%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Kost: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Ryan Kost: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.8%

515 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers44%attributed speech288writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTickPick • 20 words • 0.0% coverageStubHub • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Ferrel • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matt Ferrel

100%flagged-word coverage
167 attributed words74% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.8 ptsWriter: 28.8%Matt Ferrel: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+16.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Matt Ferrel: 27.5%27.5%Quote-first Misdirection-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%Matt Ferrel: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Matt Ferrel: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%Matt Ferrel: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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