Anthony Edwards returns with a late flourish for the Timberwolves in a clutch win over the Thunder75%

By The Associated Press65%

12/20/2025, 2:10:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Optimism Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 775 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,258 of 20,454 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.30% of the article peer group.

Minnesota Timberwolves guard Anthony Edwards celebrates his three-point basket against the Oklahoma City Thunder during the second half of an NBA basketball game Dec. 19 in Minneapolis. 
The Minnesota Timberwolves kept possession, trailing by two in the final minute, and Anthony Edwards knew exactly what he was doing next. 
After teammate Julius Randle made his first free throw and missed the second, Rudy Gobert leaped to tap the ball into the backcourt and help keep the Wolves within reach of Oklahoma City on Friday night. 
Edwards quickly took possession, steered Thunder guard Cason Wallace toward the wing, faked a drive, and swished a 25-foot step-back 3-pointer with 38.5 seconds left to give the Wolves the lead for good in a 112-107 victory. 
“I’m not passing the ball. 
I knew it was going up,” said Edwards, who returned from a three-game injury absence with 26 points and 12 rebounds. 
When it left my hand, I knew it was going in. 
He played great defense. 
It was a tough shot. 
But I probably shoot that shot 1,000 times in a week when I’m in the gym, so it felt like a natural shot.” 
Edwards, who's been managing a foot injury, said there was no doubt in his mind he would play against the Thunder, who ousted the Wolves in five games in the Western Conference finals last spring and beat them 113-105 in Oklahoma City last month. 
“At the end of the day, we’re putting the ball in his hands, asking him to bring us home,” said Donte DiVincenzo, who had 15 points. 
That’s exactly what he did.” 
Edwards didn't stop with the hero shot, either. 
He blocked reigning NBA MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander's shot at the rim on the next possession and grabbed the defensive rebound after the Thunder hung onto the ball for another try, setting up Randle for two free throws that put the Wolves up by three. 
Then as Gilgeous-Alexander drove up the court, Edwards saw teammate and defensive ace Jaden McDaniels in the gap on Gilgeous-Alexander's left, made sure to cut off his path to the right, and swiped the ball as it crossed his face. 
“I knew he was trying to go for a 3,” Edwards said. 
“Just trying to be solid.” 
Edwards, sitting in front of his locker after the game, then added the relevant levity to the revelry of handing the Thunder (25-3) a rare loss. 
“That’s just one win, man. 
That’s a regular-season win,” said Edwards, also noting the Thunder had played at home the night before. 
“They're the best team in the league by far.” 
But the defending champions clearly brought out the best in the Wolves (17-10), who might well have produced their best performance of the young season in terms of the opponent, the meaning, their energy and their defense  offsetting a rough night shooting from the floor and the foul line. 
“You could feel every defensive stop, every rebound, every offensive rebound. 
You could feel how much energy the arena had, the ball had, the teammates had,” DiVincenzo said. 
That’s the atmosphere we need every single night.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Actor-Observer Bias3.3%This article: 1.7%The Associated Press: 1.5%MPR News: 4.4%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 9.8%The Associated Press: 3.2%MPR News: 6.7%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%The Associated Press: 2.9%MPR News: 4.7%Confirmation Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%The Associated Press: 11.6%MPR News: 25.4%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 3.3%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 7.5%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 7.7%Halo Effect7.5%This article: 23.4%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 1.8%Hindsight Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%MPR News: 11.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 4.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 11.2%MPR News: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%The Associated Press: 3.1%MPR News: 8.2%Optimism Bias18.1%This article: 1.7%The Associated Press: 1.0%MPR News: 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.7%This article: 26.6%The Associated Press: 1.9%MPR News: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias26.6%This article: 6.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MPR News: 2.6%Pessimism Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 3.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.9%The Associated Press: 2.3%MPR News: 6.0%Self-Serving Bias13.9%This article: 1.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MPR News: 2.6%Status Quo Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MPR News: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%MPR News: 5.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.9%MPR News: 9.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.7%MPR News: 15.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.3%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 2.0%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%MPR News: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 1.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%The Associated Press: 3.1%MPR News: 5.0%Hasty Generalization1.5%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.5%The Associated Press: 3.0%MPR News: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.5%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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