Fox News89%

Angels fans' 'tarps off' cheer helps team break 106-game streak against Cardinals 49%

7/22/2026, 12:11:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 663 faulty-reasoning hits from 363 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.4% and a BS Rank of 49% (11,346 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.80% of the article peer group.

One of the most fun celebrations in baseball may have just helped the Los Angeles Angels break a 100-plus-game streak Monday night. 
For the first time in 106 games, the Angels won a game when trailing in the ninth inning, according to ESPN. 
And their fans had a cheer to help propel their team to a walk-off victory against the St. 
Louis Cardinals . 
It’s called the "tarps off" cheer, and it’s become a movement this season. 
Simply put, fans take off their shirts and wave them around in a specific section of the field, and that happened to be right field at Angel Stadium Monday night. 
Hundreds of fans waved their shirts and cheered for their squad, which was down 2-1 in the top of the eighth inning. 
The rabid cheering section continued through the bottom of the ninth when Jo Adell came to the dish with the bases loaded and a tie ballgame with the chance to walk it off. 
Perhaps it was the "tarps off" movement that got to the Cardinals’ pitcher, who plunked Adell, allowing Zach Neto to trot to home plate with the winning run. 
It’s also something the Cardinals’ fan base made famous this season. 
Busch Stadium has become a hot bed for some shirts-off celebrating. 
On May 15, the Cardinals were facing the Kansas City Royals when in the stands did the cheer. 
It was even something Cardinals manager Oliver Marmol said urged him to buy tickets for those fans that wished to participate in it. 
However, Angels fans gave those Cardinals faithful a taste of their own medicine, and it’s something they’ve been running with since May. 
The movement has also become a form of protest. 
"Sell the team" has been chanted from those right-field seats on numerous occasions this season. 
Angels owner Arte Moreno has come under fire since the team has not made the playoffs since 2014. 
The Angels are once again at the bottom of the barrel in the AL West with a 40-61 record despite the 3-2 win Monday night. 
They sit 11 games out of the division lead. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.7%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 3.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 12.1%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias6.1%This article: 6.1%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 2.5%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.3%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 7.4%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.8%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.8%This article: 6.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque6.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.5%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal18.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection5.8%This article: 16.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice16.0%This article: 2.5%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

363 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.3%attributed speech340writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageOliver Marmol • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Oliver Marmol

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Oliver Marmol: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.1 ptsWriter: 17.1%Oliver Marmol: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Oliver Marmol: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Oliver Marmol: 0.0%0.0%

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.