STLPR0%

St. Louis Battlehawks head to the playoffs hoping to end postseason drought 25%

By Jonathan Ahl0%

6/5/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Indoctrination, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 30.5% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 688 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.4% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,470 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.20% of the article peer group.

The St. 
Louis Battlehawks have done well by most metrics in the five seasons they have played in spring football leagues, posting winning records and drawing the highest attendance counts. 
But a win in the playoffs has eluded the team. 
The Battlehawks have lost both of their postseason games at the Dome at America’s Center. 
They hope to buck that trend Sunday when they host the the Louisville Kings in a semifinal game. 
Kickoff is at 5 p.m. 
Head coach Ricky Proehl said the past is not on his mind when preparing the team. 
“If you want to talk about pressure, you are talking to the wrong guy,” Proehl said. 
“I want (the team) to be flying around and having fun playing football, and I don’t want them feeling pressure. 
I want them to do what they have been doing but do it at the highest level.” 
The Battlehawks again led the United Football League in attendance, averaging more than 23,000 fans this season, twice as many as the next-highest team. 
Punt returner Sean Fresch, one of seven Battlehawks named to the All-UFL team this year, said the dome is the loudest stadium in the league and will be an advantage. 
“It’s exciting for us, but not very exciting for the other team. 
So, we're just going to embrace it. 
It's our home field so we are going to protect it,” Fresch said. 
The winner of the Battlehawks-Kings game will advance to the UFL championship game - the United Bowl - in Washington, D.C., on June 8. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%Jonathan Ahl: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Jonathan Ahl: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 10.4%Jonathan Ahl: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic10.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Jonathan Ahl: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 11.2%Jonathan Ahl: 14.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect11.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.2%Jonathan Ahl: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.8%Jonathan Ahl: 13.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias20.8%This article: 3.7%Jonathan Ahl: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 3.7%Jonathan Ahl: 5.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias3.7%This article: 16.7%Jonathan Ahl: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Jonathan Ahl: 7.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 30.5%Jonathan Ahl: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect30.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jonathan Ahl: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Jonathan Ahl: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem5.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.2%Jonathan Ahl: 3.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority11.2%This article: 11.2%Jonathan Ahl: 6.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma11.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Jonathan Ahl: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 12.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.8%Jonathan Ahl: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division4.8%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%Jonathan Ahl: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.9%Jonathan Ahl: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 30.1%Jonathan Ahl: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice30.1%This article: 18.6%Jonathan Ahl: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination18.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Ahl: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

269 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRicky Proehl • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRicky Proehl • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRicky Proehl • 20 words • 100.0% coverageRicky Proehl • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSean Fresch • 30 words • 0.0% coverageSean Fresch • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSean Fresch • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSean Fresch • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sean Fresch

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words47% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-58.7 ptsWriter: 58.7%Sean Fresch: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+21.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sean Fresch: 21.0%21.0%

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.