OutKick⁠97%

Scottie Scheffler Gets Right Back Into The Masters With Career Day, And It Could've Been Even Better ⁠59%

By Mark Harris⁠0%

4/11/2026, 9:43:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 88.2% saturation with 477 hits. Analysis detected 2,001 faulty-reasoning hits from 541 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (9,051 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.60% of the article peer group.

Over the opening 36 holes of the Masters, Scottie Scheffler's game looked disjointed, leaving him unable to put stretches together to pin his name to the front page of the leaderboard. 
Opening rounds of 70-74 put him in the middle of the pack at even par, and as he began Saturday's third round a stunning 12 shots back of leader Rory McIlroy, getting back into the golf tournament felt impossible, even for a player who has twice slid on a green jacket. 
Scheffler starting his third round hours before McIlroy and posting an under-par score, but not really making legitimate noise, was what most in the golf world expected to see on Saturday. 
Scheffler did post a round under par, but sounded the alarms while doing so. 
The fairway wood Scheffler hit from 267 yards into the Par 5 second hole — setting up his second eagle on the hole for the week — was the tone setter for the outward nine he played to perfection. 
Scheffler went on to birdie the seventh, eighth, and ninth holes to turn at 5-under on the day and for the tournament, and made it look easy in the process. 
Positional tee shots, followed by ball-striking at its best, lead to some of the most stress-free birdie putts you’ll find at Augusta National. 
Suddenly, it felt (somewhat) doable. 
The No. 1 player in the world making the turn seven shots back of McIlroy began conversations of "what if?" 
Then, Scheffler decided to birdie the Par 4 11th, and the conversation got much louder. 
Sure, McIlroy still had well over an hour before his third-round tee time, and there was always a chance he'd come out and tear the course and the competition limb by limb just as he did on Friday, but there was a glimmer of hope that drama could be on the horizon. 
That drama could, and likely will, still transpire over the next day and a half at Augusta National, and despite being 6-under thru his first 11 holes on Saturday, Scheffler could've taken things even deeper. 
With two Par 5s left to play and with Scheffler operating at the level he was, getting to at least 8-under felt guaranteed. 
Instead, and almost inexplicably, he made par on each of the Par 5s, and the final birdie of his day came at the Par 3 16th. 
There is little to nothing to complain about when it comes to a bogey-free, 7-under round of 65, Scheffler's career-low around Augusta National, but he was well aware he left a couple out there on Saturday. 
"Overall could have been — I mean, I guess to answer your question, it wasn't maybe that bad, but it definitely could have been lower. 
But like I said, I did what I needed to do," Scheffler said following his round. 
"Went out and executed to give myself some opportunities, and more of that tomorrow, and I think I'll be in a good spot." 
Yes, more of that tomorrow, and Scheffler will be in a good spot. 
Maybe even Butler Cabin putting on a green jacket for the third time in five years. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 7.8%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.3%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Mark Harris: 5.2%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 14.2%Mark Harris: 2.8%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic14.2%This article: 4.8%Mark Harris: 3.3%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 17.4%Mark Harris: 3.2%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 8.8%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 14.2%Mark Harris: 0.5%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion14.2%This article: 3.7%Mark Harris: 0.9%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.5%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 38.3%Mark Harris: 4.6%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias38.3%This article: 9.4%Mark Harris: 3.7%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias9.4%This article: 19.8%Mark Harris: 14.9%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 7.6%Mark Harris: 1.7%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 2.6%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.5%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.8%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.4%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Mark Harris: 4.7%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect27.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.6%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.2%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.3%Mark Harris: 5.4%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias15.3%This article: 5.7%Mark Harris: 0.8%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.3%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 5.3%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 2.1%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 2.3%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 13.7%Mark Harris: 3.0%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma13.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.8%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.6%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Mark Harris: 8.4%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.7%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.9%Mark Harris: 1.7%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon8.9%This article: 16.1%Mark Harris: 5.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion16.1%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.7%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.8%Mark Harris: 4.0%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.3%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.5%Mark Harris: 0.4%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof6.5%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.2%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Mark Harris: 0.4%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 2.4%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Mark Harris: 2.8%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.0%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.1%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.3%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.1%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Mark Harris: 2.1%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 1.1%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 88.2%Mark Harris: 25.2%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice88.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 3.1%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 2.6%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Harris: 0.7%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

541 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech477writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageScottie Scheffler • 25 words • 100.0% coverageScottie Scheffler • 16 words • 0.0% coverageScottie Scheffler • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scottie Scheffler

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Scottie Scheffler: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+39.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scottie Scheffler: 39.1%39.1%

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.