OutKick89%

Hot mic catches heated argument between MLB manager and umpire after controversial ejection 27%

By Zach Dean87%

6/20/2026, 11:58:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 761 faulty-reasoning hits from 513 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of 27% (16,012 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

Every few years, we get a truly great hot mic moment in Major League Baseball. 
A lot of things have to line up perfectly. 
The broadcast has to be in the right place, at the right time. 
The stadium can't be going insane. 
The microphones have to be positioned perfectly. 
The manager who is presumably getting tossed, and the umpire who presumably tossed him, have to both be willing to play ball and give the people a show. 
See? 
A lot of factors go into a perfect hot mic moment. 
It's why we so rarely get one. 
Friday night in Sacramento, we got our first really good one of the season. 
We did it! 
The stars aligned, and we  the fans  were transported right into the middle of an argument over balls and strikes between the home plate umpire and A's manager Mark Kotsay. 
BLUE JAYS MANAGER JOHN SCHNEIDER DROPS F-BOMB IN HOT MIC MOMENT WITH UMPIRE 
Take a look: 
ABS doesn't excuse for being bad at your job 
"That is f---ing ridiculous," Kotsay starts out. 
"All I said was it was down. 
You missed three f---ing pitches in the first f--king inning." 
Was it the infamous Terry Collins hot mic ejection from a few years ago? 
No. 
Nothing will ever beat that one. 
But this was still a solid little back-and-forth between Kotsay and the ump. 
And I gotta say ... 
I'm with Kotsay here. 
Easy call. 
These umpires all think they can just hide behind ABS nowadays. 
Wrong. 
Just because teams can challenge a pitch doesn't give you the right to be bad at your job like you now have some sort of life raft. 
Because here's the thing, and Kotsay makes this very point ... teams do not want to be using challenges in the first few innings. 
That's ridiculous. 
They're only guaranteed two a game, and using one in the first inning usually isn't worth the risk. 
"Oh, we don't listen to it anymore, right? 
Because we have challenges," Kotsay continued. 
"You're gonna force us to make a challenge in the first f--king inning or second f--king inning. 
You're already wrong on that ball down. 
All you have to do is click that f--king button and listen to it." 
The Mets, unbelievably, ran out of challenges in the second inning the other night. 
That's impressively bad. 
It's also just an awful strategy. 
If this year has taught us anything, it's that you never, ever, want to be like the Mets (or Red Sox). 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
So no, blue, the A's probably aren't going to challenge a close call in the second inning of a game in June. 
But that doesn't mean you get a free pass for being bad at your job. 
That doesn't mean the manager can't complain about the zone from the dugout. 
That's baseball. 
That's how this game has been played for a century now. 
No amount of ABS technology should shield you from that. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Zach Dean: 3.9%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Zach Dean: 4.9%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.1%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.1%This article: 4.7%Zach Dean: 2.8%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 10.5%Zach Dean: 4.9%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.5%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 2.1%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Zach Dean: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 17.5%Zach Dean: 11.4%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.1%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Zach Dean: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 2.1%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Zach Dean: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 4.3%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Zach Dean: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Zach Dean: 3.8%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Zach Dean: 2.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 5.3%Zach Dean: 1.6%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 4.1%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.0%Zach Dean: 9.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization9.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.6%Zach Dean: 1.7%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.6%This article: 2.1%Zach Dean: 7.2%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 3.1%Zach Dean: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 2.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.2%Zach Dean: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.2%This article: 0.4%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.4%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.8%Zach Dean: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.7%Zach Dean: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.6%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading7.6%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Zach Dean: 2.3%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 2.5%Zach Dean: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 16.2%Zach Dean: 19.6%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice16.2%This article: 0.2%Zach Dean: 2.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.2%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 2.3%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Zach Dean: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

513 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech437writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMark Kotsay • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Kotsay

50%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.0 ptsWriter: 19.0%Mark Kotsay: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Mark Kotsay: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Mark Kotsay: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Mark Kotsay: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.2 ptsWriter: 0.2%Mark Kotsay: 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.