Breitbart83%

MLB Accused of ‘Rigging’ Home Run Derby with Early Netflix Graphic 47%

By Warner Todd Huston55%

7/14/2026, 10:13:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Bandwagon, and Availability Heuristic, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 36.7% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 364 faulty-reasoning hits from 207 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.9% and a BS Rank of 47% (8,368 of 15,665 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

Major League Baseball became the target of conspiracy theories and claims it had rigged the 2026 Home Run Derby on Monday when a graphic on Netflix labeled Jordan Walker the winner before the event was even done. 
The Netflix airing of the derby featured a graphic during the last round between Walker and Philadelphia Phillies slugger Kyle Schwarber that labeled Walker as the “2026 T-Mobile Home Run Derby Champion.” 
Naturally, that sent conspiracy-minded fans to social media to proclaim that the event was rigged. 
Walker did win, of course, with a come-behind performance that surprised Schwarber, who looked like the winner right up until that last round. 
Schwarber rocketed 11 of his first 15 swings and looked to be the odds-on favorite to win the derby. 
But by the time Walker stepped up in that final round, his six homers in a row were enough to top the Phillies star’s final count with 12 to Schwarber’s 11. 
But with the mistaken graphic hitting the screen before the derby was actually finished, many a fan screamed that the whole thing was rigged. 
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: Facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston, or at X/Twitter @WTHuston 
Confirmation Bias
36.7%
Anchoring Bias
9.2%
Availability Heuristic
17.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
5.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
7.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
12.6%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
11.6%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
18.8%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
29.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
12.6%
Indoctrination
7.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
7.2%

207 words analyzed.

Analysis

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