Sky could lose forward Chloe Bibby to the Lynx 21%

By Alissa Hirsh53%

7/31/2026, 4:41:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 316 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.9% and a BS Rank of 21% (22,062 of 27,714 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.60% of the article peer group.

The Sky suddenly have a hole in their frontcourt  and now they might lose one of the players patching it. 
Starting forward Azura Stevens has been away from the team for the past week for personal reasons and will miss another game Saturday against the Aces. 
Meanwhile, the Lynx are attempting to poach one of her backups. 
According to ESPN's Alexa Philippou, Minnesota has offered development player Chloe Bibby a standard contract. 
The Sky have until 4 p.m. 
CDT Saturday to promote Bibby to a standard contract of their own or lose her. 
That's easier said than done. 
With no room under the salary cap, according to HerHoopStats, the Sky would need to cut or trade a player to make the move. 
Bibby, a 6-2 stretch big, scored eight points with two assists off the bench in Thursday's win over the Sun. 
She also posted a career-high 14 points in a win over Seattle earlier this month. 
She has contributed to two wins in limited action  tough spare that with Stevens out. 
Their only other active forwards are rookie Aicha Coulibaly, who started in Stevens' place Thursday, and development player Maddy Westbeld, whom the team has been reluctant to use. 
This was a guard-heavy roster to begin with, and Rickea Jackson's season-ending knee injury stretched it thinner. 
Until Stevens returns, the Sky may need Natasha Cloud, their versatile guard, to spot minutes in the post. 
They can also look to sign another forward to a development contract to replace Bibby. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Alissa Hirsh: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Alissa Hirsh: 7.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.0%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 9.2%Alissa Hirsh: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion9.2%This article: 6.9%Alissa Hirsh: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 3.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Alissa Hirsh: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 24.1%Alissa Hirsh: 8.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.4%Negativity Bias24.1%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 5.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Alissa Hirsh: 3.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.9%Alissa Hirsh: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Appeal to Authority14.9%This article: 5.7%Alissa Hirsh: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Alissa Hirsh: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 3.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.1%Alissa Hirsh: 10.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice16.1%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alissa Hirsh: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.7%attributed speech246writer words
Selected voice

ESPN

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.1 ptsWriter: 17.1%ESPN: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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