OutKick⁠97%

Dalton Rushing Said Something Was 'Fishy' About The Rockies First-Pitch Swing Against Dodgers ⁠52%

By Dan Zaksheske⁠0%

4/19/2026, 4:11:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 611 faulty-reasoning hits from 401 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,538 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.90% of the article peer group.

The Colorado Rockies entered the weekend tied for last place in the NL West, trailing the Los Angeles Dodgers by 7.5 games just 19 games into the 2026 MLB season. 
They snapped a six-game losing streak Thursday with a win over the Houston Astros. 
The Rockies welcomed the Dodgers to Coors Field for a four-game set, and based on how both teams were playing, it appeared to be an opportunity for the Dodgers to continue their torrid start to the season. 
Of course, it doesn't hurt that the Dodgers roster costs more than a quarter-billion dollars more than the Rockies, but that's for another day. 
Instead, Colorado stunned Los Angeles by taking two of the first three games in the series (after the Dodgers roasted the Rockies, 7-1, on Friday). 
So, how did they do it? 
Well, according to Dodgers catcher Dalton Rushing, probably by cheating. 
"I think they had a good game plan as an opposing team, and maybe I pitched into their game plan. 
As far as calling pitches, I'm not 100% sure. 
I just, I think it's odd some of those hitters that do what they do, they go up there, and they were only on the first pitch that was thrown. 
So it's a little fishy," Rushing said. 
The implication by Rushing seems to pretty clearly be that the Rockies knew what pitch the Dodgers were going to throw with their first pitches. 
That would seem to mean that Rushing thinks the Rockies were cheating, as does the use of the word "fishy." 
Now, it seems unlikely that the Colorado Rockies, one of the worst teams in baseball for the past several years, have an elaborate cheating scheme going on. 
That being said, it's worth noting that the Rockies are 6-3 at Coors Field this season but 3-10 on the road. 
Of course, those are small sample sizes and don't prove anything. 
Also, the Rockies are the most aggressive first-pitch swinging team in Major League Baseball. 
According to Statcast, Colorado hitters swing at the first pitch of an at-bat 38% of the time, which includes both home and road games. 
It just sounds like sour grapes from Rushing, a catcher for a team that simply outspends all the other teams in Major League Baseball. 
If any team has an unfair advantage, it's the Dodgers. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%Dan Zaksheske: 6.1%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias6.0%This article: 11.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 6.7%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 8.5%Dan Zaksheske: 8.6%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.6%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Dan Zaksheske: 7.8%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.9%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.5%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.6%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.4%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.4%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 5.7%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem6.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.7%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority6.0%This article: 2.5%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 7.7%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring6.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Dan Zaksheske: 4.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 6.2%Dan Zaksheske: 1.8%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.3%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal10.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Dan Zaksheske: 1.4%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.2%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 14.7%Dan Zaksheske: 18.2%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice14.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 5.1%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

401 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech325writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDalton Rushing • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDalton Rushing • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDalton Rushing • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDalton Rushing • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDalton Rushing • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dalton Rushing

74%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.9 ptsWriter: 15.1%Dalton Rushing: 13.2%13.2%Quote-first Misdirection-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Dalton Rushing: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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