‘I’m getting chills’: Red Sox extend winning streak to 13 games, their longest in 78 years 85%

By Trevor Hass0%

7/19/2026, 10:58:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Recency Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.5% saturation with 341 hits. Analysis detected 1,804 faulty-reasoning hits from 749 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.3% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,203 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

When you really take a second to think about it, it’s legitimately inconceivable that this Red Sox team is by far the hottest in baseball and amid a truly miraculous postseason push. 
It’s one thing for a contender to rip off 13 straight wins. 
It’s another for a seemingly hopeless, last-place team to rise from the dead and sucker-punch four consecutive helpless opponents. 
This team just didn’t have it. 
You know it when you see it. 
We’ve seen it a lot around here. 
That unmistakable “it factor,” where it feels like it’s just a matter of time before the opposition crumbles. 
Instead, the Red Sox had the “ick factor,” where watching them felt like a chore and fans were counting down the days until the offseason. 
Then, suddenly, everything started to click. 
Four against the Yankees. 
Three more versus the Angels, White Sox and Mets. 
That was great and all, but could they sustain it after the All-Star break? 
Well, after sweeping the Rays in a four-game set this weekend  capped by a resounding, 6-1, triumph at Fenway Park on Sunday  it’s abundantly clear that this team is here to stay. 
This is no fluke. 
This is the new norm. 
Amid their longest winning streak since 1948  with a superstar named Ted Williams at the crux of the action  the Red Sox (50-48) have established themselves as legitimate contenders. 
Interim manager Chad Tracy, who continues to prove he belongs, said his focus is on the next game against Baltimore. 
At the same time, he acknowledged the magic of the run and what it entails. 
“I won’t shy away from what we’re doing,” Tracy said. 
“It is pretty incredible, and it’s been a fun ride, and we want to keep it going.” 
It’s not just that they’re winning; it’s how they’re winning. 
The rotation was never the problem. 
It was clear all along that if, by some miracle, the Red Sox could consistently score runs, they would put themselves in prime position to win games. 
After scoring 28 against the Rays  doing so with a mix of small ball and refreshing power  this lineup looks dangerous. 
For Contreras, who has brought the energy throughout, watching the ballpark come alive around him has been extremely gratifying. 
“I don’t want them to start saying, like shouting, ‘Sell the team!’ 
I don’t like that,” Contreras said. 
“I take that personally, but they’re passionate about it. 
But I’m really proud of the team, of my team. 
Really proud of the work we’ve done. 
Really proud because of the way we started, how we are right now. 
And I know there’s a lot of games ahead, but they make me proud.” 
This is what it’s supposed to look like around here. 
No empty seats, “Sweet Caroline” has some extra oomph, and fans on their feet throughout the game. 
Taking off their shirts and waving them may not be entirely necessary, but it illuminates the point that people care again. 
On the mound, ace Sonny Gray didn’t have his best stuff but still managed to allow just one run in six innings to improve to 12-1. 
Gray, noting that what he did Sunday is not sustainable, said he was a “little bit rusty.” 
He consciously reminded himself that he didn’t have to be perfect, as long as he found a way to give the team a chance to prevail. 
Having a lineup behind him that can put runs on the board is a refreshing change of pace, and feeding off the energy from the fans helped Gray power through in key spots. 
“The fans were electric for us this weekend,” Gray said. 
“I’m getting chills. 
I mean, it was really, really special. 
People say coming to Boston and playing in Boston, there’s nothing like winning in Boston. 
The fans are a part of it, and we appreciate the energy that they bring. 
We need it.” 
This is a scrappy, unflappable, and determined group that fans can get behind. 
They’re likely not going to win 77 in a row to end the regular season (or maybe they will), but the games matter again, the vibes are back, and the energy is electric. 
That’s all you can ask for, especially considering where they started. 
“We’ve just rolled with the punches so well,” said infielder Caleb Durbin. 
“It feels like we can’t do any wrong right now.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 7.0%Boston.com: 2.2%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 1.4%Boston.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Trevor Hass: 3.7%Boston.com: 2.9%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 2.3%Trevor Hass: 1.8%Boston.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 8.4%Trevor Hass: 8.6%Boston.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias8.4%This article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 6.6%Boston.com: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 0.9%Boston.com: 5.9%Framing Effect1.3%This article: 1.2%Trevor Hass: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion1.2%This article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 1.3%Boston.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.9%Trevor Hass: 15.6%Boston.com: 2.2%Optimism Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Trevor Hass: 4.2%Boston.com: 6.1%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 5.1%Trevor Hass: 2.6%Boston.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Trevor Hass: 7.3%Boston.com: 1.0%In-Group Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Trevor Hass: 11.9%Boston.com: 2.8%Halo Effect17.2%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 1.4%Boston.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.5%Trevor Hass: 9.7%Boston.com: 1.4%Recency Bias21.5%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Trevor Hass: 3.4%Boston.com: 4.0%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 1.9%Trevor Hass: 0.6%Boston.com: 1.0%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 1.2%Boston.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.6%Trevor Hass: 10.5%Boston.com: 3.2%Hasty Generalization15.6%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 2.8%Boston.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.3%Trevor Hass: 14.1%Boston.com: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion22.3%This article: 6.5%Trevor Hass: 2.5%Boston.com: 0.5%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 15.4%Trevor Hass: 5.1%Boston.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.4%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 0.4%Boston.com: 0.1%Composition/Division1.3%This article: 11.3%Trevor Hass: 3.8%Boston.com: 2.3%Anecdotal11.3%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.1%Trevor Hass: 4.4%Boston.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.1%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Trevor Hass: 0.9%Boston.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.7%This article: 2.1%Trevor Hass: 1.4%Boston.com: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 45.5%Trevor Hass: 26.4%Boston.com: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice45.5%This article: 1.3%Trevor Hass: 0.9%Boston.com: 1.1%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Trevor Hass: 0.0%Boston.com: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

749 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech569writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageChad Tracy • 20 words • 100.0% coverageChad Tracy • 15 words • 0.0% coverageChad Tracy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChad Tracy • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageSonny Gray • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSonny Gray • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCaleb Durbin • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Caleb Durbin

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words12% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-59.9 ptsWriter: 59.9%Caleb Durbin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Caleb Durbin: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Caleb Durbin: 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.