10.a. Michael Jackson - becomes a child star, a teen star, and eventually the King of Pop. The fame fucks up his life/head beyond repair. He's now a pathetic, tragic mess.10.b. Britney Spears - becomes a child star, a teen star, and eventually the Princess of Pop. The fame fucks up her life/head beyond repair. She's now a pathetic, tragic mess.
9. Apollo Creed defeats Rocky - Creed beats the scrappy Italian Stallion in a bout that is supposed to make him out to be the good guy giving the little guy a shot at the title on the country's bicentennial. The world turns against him, baiting him into giving Rocky a rematch. Rocky beats him and takes his heavyweight champ title. 
8. Barry Bonds - Talk about topical. This very day, baseball's most prolific slugger was arraigned in a federal court on perjury and obstruction of justice charges - charges that stem from his continued cover-up of the fact that he used steroids - steroids which he used in the late 90s early 00s to help him compete with the other juiced up sluggers. Once on the juice, he went on an unprecedented home run tear and now holds the Major League records for most homers in a year and in a career. He's # 1, but it may very well end up landing him in jail and out of the Hall of Fame, and possibly the record books that he was initially trying to get in. Pyrrhus wants to buy you a drink, Barry. He's down there at the end of the bar.
7. Detective David Mills - Brad Pitt's character in Se7en catches the bad guy, solves the mystery, only to be baited into gaining his vengeance, thus falling into the bad guy's trap, and consigning himself to life in prison.
6. Kurt Cobain - wins fame, glory, mainstream success, and riches - all of which contribute to his drug addiction, his feeling like a sell-out, internal angst, etc, all of which surely factored prominently in his suicide.Apparently, he missed the comfort of being sad.
5. Len Bias - the dreaded double pyrrhic victory. For the non-sports fan VTK readers, here's the story: In 1986, the World Champion Boston Celtics (considered to be one of the 3 or 4 best basketball teams of all time), lucked out and came in second in the draft lottery, then duped the team that won the lottery into picking another player. The Celtics then selected the best player in the draft, Len Bias, who was a great player in college and would have fit in perfectly with the Celtics, allowing them to rest their two big forward all-stars, Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. This would have prolonged their careers and the Celtics' dominance well into the 90's. Would. For his part, Len Bias was on top of the world - he had just been selected by the Boston Celtics, the best team in the world, rather than the usual scenario in which a star has to enter the NBA with a crap team and carry the load. But unfortunately for Len and the Celtics, Len decided to celebrate his good fortune and OD'ed on cocaine that night. The real tragedy of course is the death of Len and all his potential in the prime of his life. The secondary pyrrhic victory was for the Celtics, who lost their new star and whose front line would have to put in many more minutes than their aging frames could bear. They haven't won the title since.
4. Anne Boleyn - The second wife of King Henry VIII. Anne won the heart of the married king of England, so much so that being unable to get the Vatican to annul his marriage to his first wife, Catherine, Henry left the Catholic Church and formed his own religion, the Anglican Church, so that he could marry Anne. That's quite a coup; she married the King of England and launched the English Reformation. Too bad she wasn't able to give him a son (nevermind that that would have been his fault, genetically speaking) - an unfortunate reality that led to her beheading.
3. The Scorpion and the Frog - The scorpion wins a ride across the river on the back of the Frog. The scorpion convinces the frog to give him a ride across the river on his back, reasoning that he wouldn't sting him because then they would both drown. The frog agrees and starts swimming across the river with the scorpion on its back. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog and both start drowning. "Why did you do that?" asked the frog. "Because I'm a scorpion" said the scorpion. Both drown.
2. Boom Boom Mancini beats Duk Koo Kim - 21 year old American lightweight boxing champion of the world, Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini knocked out 23 year old South Korean Duk Koo Kim in the 14th round of their title bout, which was broadcast live on CBS on November 13th, 1982 (watched by a 9 yr old vtkid). Duk Koo Kim got up initially but the fight was stopped and he was incapacitated after the fight, hospitalized, and eventually died 5 days later from brain injuries sustained in the fight. Mancini went to Kim's funeral in South Korea. He soon slipped deep into a depression. Kim's mother and the referee of the match both committed suicide. Mancini fought a handful of times after that, but never recovered from the repercussions of this fight. 
1. The Battles of Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC - King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeats the Roman Army, but incurs massive casualties from which his army cannot recover. The Roman Army has no problem replenishing their supply of soldiers and eventually wins the war. The original.
[special thanks to N-Lo for his consultations and suggestions on this list]
Posts
58 comments:
This might be my favorite post topic ever.
I was hoping that the original would make the list. Very satisfying conclusion.
Thanks. Any other suggestions? I was working hard to figure out a way to add Al Gore 2000 to the list, but it just didn't qualify as Pyrrhic. And it wasn't technically a victory.
Nice post,
I would have put the Alamo as one of my choices.
Another fine example. there are a bunch of wars/battles that would qualify.
Great post!
Hey - what's up with Operation Black Velvet. I want to schedule our unveiling dinner for before Christmas - is that possible?
you are too smartie pants for me.
i am also now inspired to finish reading my biography of anne boleyn. thanks for that.
She was quite a woman.
Here's a few, not sure if they count.
Marie Curie - a woman becoming top of her field, discovering radium only to die years later from exposure.
Chris Farley - did everything he could to emulate his hero John Belushi, because famous, got to be on SNL and do movies, only to die the exact same way, at the same age if I remember correctly - he finally "becomes" belushi, but is too dead to appreciate it
John Holmes - what a gift, hung like a horse, huge sex drive, got to bang a ton of chicks - but died of AIDS
William Henry Harrison - Wins the White House, only to give his inaugural address on a cold, wet snowy day - which caused him to die of pneumonia 30 days later, having accomplished nothing but becoming president
Nice ones. Curie and Farley - totally pyrrhic.
New York Yankees and A-Rod.
The Sox work out a deal in 2003 to get A-Rod from the Rangers. But the deal would require A-Rod to decrease his salary. The MLB Players Union squashes the deal and the Yankees swoop in and pick up A-Rod, giving him the largest contract in baseball, and the Boss makes disparaging remarks about the Sox ownership not doing enough to put a winner on the field. The Sox "settle" for Curt Schilling who goes on to be a pivotal part of the 2004 and 2007 World Series winning teams. Meanwhile A-Rod becomes a great regular season player and a giant black hole in the Yankees post season lineup that has yet to win the World Series.
Nice try and entirely predictable. It took you nearly a week to come up with that?
A. The Yankees did not give A-Rod the largest contract in baseball. That's just factually incorrect.
B. It wasn't the acquisition of A-Rod that led to the Yankees losing the ALCS in 04 (I assume that's what you're characterizing as pyrrhic, because not winning a world series is hardly a crushing defeat on a pyrrhic scale). This example would fit more appropriately under the heading of Ewing Theory or the ubiquitous folksy Curse Of _______.
A-Rod did land the largest deal MLB history as well as american sports history!
Try to get your facts together before throwing dewey24 under the bus!
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/yankees/2007-11-21-arod-finances_N.htm
Ian
Ian
Hi Ian,
Welcome to VTK. I always welcome new readers/commenters. Please review dewy24's comment (note the spelling as well) and the context in which he said that the Yankees gave A-Rod the largest contract in baseball. It was in the context of 2003, not 2007. The Texas Rangers gave A-Rod that contract, the largest contract in baseball and then they had to agree to continue to pay $5 million a year for the duration of that contract, so that the Yankees would only be paying $20 million a year. So, it's the Rangers, not the Yankees. Thanks though, Ian the Factmaster!
cheers,
Dan
p.s. Manny Alexander's a cheating scumbag!
Dan,
Ok "Factmaster Dan" lets not let the facts get in the way of the truth!
You are wrong about A-Rods contract, you have know facts to back up what you claim.You are just another angry smug Yankee fan!
Ian
I don't have time for your petulant games, "Ian". Everything I said is true, and I think you know that. I don't like to censor but since I don't know who you are, I'm going to have to ask you to keep your comments legitimate or to shop your anti-Yankee sentiment elsewhere.
Dan,
1.$275 million in guaranteed money(most garunteed money in sports history)
2.$30 million for milestones based on home runs.
3.$9 million in deferred money that the Texas Rangers owe Rodriguez in conjunction with his decision to opt out of his last contract.
= 314,000,000.00
Those are the facts.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, as I have read your blog you seemed to be a bit of a call out master yourself and when I read your response to dewy24's post you kind of showed your bias towards the Yanks.
Its your blog but expect an oposing view when you blog in soxland and sometimes it will come down hard and fast.
"petulant" nice SAT word!
Ian
ok, Ian. Fair enough. I now realize that you're not being an ass, rather we're having a misunderstanding. Your facts are indeed correct regarding the 2007 contract. However, if you read dewy24's comment again and interpret the context of the scenario that he is characterizing as pyrrhic, you'll see (hopefully) that he is clearly, clearly, clearly talking about the contract that A-Rod had in 2003, which was also the biggest in baseball/sports history, but was NOT given to him or even paid in full by the Yankees. That contract was given to him by the Rangers. fact. The Rangers paid about $5 million per year up until A-Rod opted out in October. fact. Those are the facts that I was talking about and refuting. I was specifically refuting dewy24's characterization of the A-Rod Yankee acquisition as pyrrhic. It's got nothing to do with this 2007 contract since if that can be seen as a victory, it remains to be seen if the victory will be pyrrhic in nature.
So hopefully that clarifies things, validates me, and no hard feelings. As this is a misunderstanding, I welcome and encourage you to continue commenting on VTK - there will be many a Yankees Sox argument to be had here. For future reference, my arguments with dewy24 can never be seen as me "throwing him under the bus". dewy24 and I have been arguing vehemently about the Yankees and the Red Sox for 16 years. It is the caustic subtext of our good friendship. As this post demonstrates, we will eventually turn every discussion into a Yankees Sox argument and you're welcome to join in on his side at any point (though he's quite capable on his own).
Lastly, and most importantly, THIS (*pointing around the virtual space occupied by VTK*) is most most most definitely NOT "soxland". My corporeal (SAT word) self lives in soxland (Cambridge, MA) so I am quite familiar, comfortable, and satisfied to be living in the real soxland. I know soxland. I know all about soxland. And this (VTK) is not soxland. If anywhere, this (VTK) could more accurately be described as Pittsfield, a city on the choppy frontierland between soxland and yankeesland. I am and always have been a huge Yankees fan, so as the proprietor and curator of this establishment I ensure that it is not soxland. There are links to nomaas.org, bronxbanter, and the New York Times. I have Yankees fans amongst my regular readership. However, I am happy to admit that there are as many if not more Red Sox fans amongst my readership and I am happy to field all commentary from them regarding the Red Sox. And I think I'm pretty fair about it. The comment section of any blog should not be a fascist, non free speech zone dictated by the blog facilitator. If it seems like that's the case, that's probably because I like to make a habit of responding to all comments in the interest of encouraging dialogue (not to dominate or restrict dialogue). Everyone's free to comment how they like as long as they're not being racist/homophobic/sexist/etc or otherwise hurtful or offensive (always an elusively definition). I do reserve the right to point out gratuitous and irrelevant Yankee bashing or Yankee baiting like demonstrated in my response to akboognish's attempt to turn the oo president topic into a pointless discussion of the Mitchell Report. He was clearly baiting me into a discussion in which I would have to defend the Yankees organization against the allegations of a member of the Red Sox board of directors who gathered all his facts from two trainers from New York. But just rest assured that regular commenters like dewy24 and akboognish and a myriad of others are people who I've been having these arguments with for years so there are no hard feelings if it seems like there are and they give at least as good as they get. But again, welcome.
and I was right.
and let's go Yankees!
Dan, I believe that I need to hear that last comment from you recorded on video, delivered as a stirring speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In just a few short paragraphs you have defended the Yankees, defended your blog, defended the highest principles of objectivity, and even defended Ian's right to be wrong.
Whew. I'm inspired.
Go Yanks, especially here in "Soxland" (Hmm...sounds like some kind of low-rate cheesy sketchy theme park where all they can do is get Oil Can Boyd to come up from Brockton to sign autographs once a month for half the take at the front gate...)
Over here in Portland, Maine, USA (Soxland), we love the VTK and we most certainly love our Yankees.
Thanks to VTK's erudite and passionate Yankees commentary, a visit to this blog is sometimes like a walk in Monument Park itself.
Yankees fans are everywhere. You can identify us by our display of Bronx Pride.
Go Yanks! Go VTK!
Soxland is very much like a low-rate cheesy sketchy theme park. That's its charm, I guess.
Dan,
I enjoyed reading your reply to my post, I can see that you and I share the same views with regard to free speech and and facism.
As you said in your previous post I was using the 07 contract to base my argument and I was flat wrong.
So I will be using the 12/00 contract to base my response:
1.A-Rod signs 10 year deal for 252 million dollars with the Texas Rangers,A-Rod plays through that contract up until he is traded to the New York Yankees in 03.
And as you mentioned in your response the Yankees agreed to assume A-Rods contract from the Rangers under the condition that the Rangers would provide compensation of 5,2 mil per year unless he opts out to get a new contract.
2.Just because the Yankees recieved compensation does not change the fact the A-rods still being payed under the original contract he signed with Rangers.
3.And if the Rangers refused to pay the compensation the Yankees would have to pay A-Rod the full amount of his original contract.
In closing, I think that you and I agree that A-Rod was playing under his original contract that he recieved from the Texas Rangers when he was traded to the New York Yankees and we also agree that contract was the largest in MLB history.
One more fact before I end my post: A-Rod was willing to renegotiate his contract to play in Boston and if it was'nt for the players union sticking there nose in the middle he would been on the Red Sox and his contract would have been at the reduce rate that has been the basis for your whole agrument.
Thank you for allowing me to lay out the facts and if you decide to debate these facts please do so with facts backed up by footnotes i.e.(MLB.COM,WIKI etc..)
This is not to say that you can not be a reliable source but none of your posts have any footnotes.
Best,
Ian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts
A couple quick points:
re: 2. A-Rod was playing under the largest contract in history that the Rangers agreed to, but that doesn't change the fact that the Yankees were not paying him or "giving him" the largest contract in history, which is the disputed element of dewy24's argument trying to call the whole scenario pyrrhic.
re: 3. what? where did you get this? I didn't see this anywhere in your footnoted link. The whole basis for the trade was that the Rangers would be paying that amount. There's no way they could just decide they weren't going to pay it and stick the Yankees with the whole bill. That just doesn't make any sense. I don't think I need to footnote proof of a stipulation that I don't think exists. The burden of proof isn't on me for this one.
I'm also not sure I see the relevance of the "one more fact". Whether A-Rod was willing to take a discounted salary to play for the Red Sox doesn't have any bearing on whether the Yankees acquisition of him in 03 could be seen as a pyrrhic victory.
cheers,
Dan
- nothing to footnote
Dan,
The Yankee's "assumed" the Rangers contract with A-Rod as end user.
Whether they paid A-Rod ten million and the Rangers paid 15,2 million is symantics, he was playing under the same contract that was signed in 2000.
Dewy24' point is valid it was a
"pyrrhic victory" they got the best player of our generation that never shows up in the post season.
I really not looking to be right or champion dewey24 but I think your bais to the Yankees has got in the way of the facts as well as your knowlege basic contract law.
But as you said its your blog and thats how it goes! Pour me my big cup of Yankee cool aid I am ready to take the plunge!
Ian
P.S.
FYI,
I am Pirates fan
Working backwards:
- a Pirates fan. yikes. sorry. I'm a Steelers fan, so I have some sympathy for the fans of Pittsburgh.
- I don't think I said "it's [my] blog and thats how it goes". In fact, I think I went out of my way to point out that I encourage debate and dissenting opinions. It's got nothing to do with kool aid; we're just disagreeing.
- As far as basic contract law knowledge goes, I'm absolutely as ignorant as the next non-lawyer. But it doesn't take a John Roberts to sort this situation out. The facts are clear; any opinions extrapolated from them are debatable. I don't think you've actually refuted any of my "facts", none of which are fabricated as a result of my Yankee bias (which I obviously have - I'm a Yankees fan - let's not pretend this is an objective world - we all have our biases - e.g. I'm partial to dashes - e.g.2. your clear bias against the Yankees (see "just another angry smug Yankee fan" written by you above).
- The only reason dewy24 characterized the A-Rod acquisition as a victory for the Yankees is because he took it as a loss for the Sox in the depths of his post 2003 ALCS bitterness. The Yankees weren't competing with the Red Sox to get A-Rod's services. They got into the game after the Red Sox deal fell apart and their idiot 3rd baseman blew out his knee playing a pick-up hoop game. For the Yankees, it was a trade, which has both paid dividends and not worked out depending on the scenario. In any case, if it could be categorized as a victory for the Yankees to successfully trade for him it isn't necessarily pyrrhic in nature for the Yankees because they didn't suffer debilitating casualties or losses because of any "victory" of their acquisition of A-Rod - sure he's had some bad stretches in the postseason, but so have many of their other star players, both pitchers and hitters. baseball is a team game and you can't pin Yankee losses solely on A-Rod. And you can't say that the victory was for the Yankees and that the losses are suffered by A-Rod. That's not a pyrrhic victory.
- of course, he was playing under the same contract; that's not disputed. But I repeat: dewy24 specifically said that they gave him the largest contract in baseball, which they did not. You're spinning your wheels on this one, Ian. If I'm guilty of "semantics", you're guilty of the same thing. The key point is that they did not give, nor did they pay A-Rod the largest contract in baseball and Texas could not have simply decided not to pay their 5 odd million and stick the Yankees with the whole bill forcing them to pay him in full on the largest contract in baseball.
- yes. they "assumed" the discounted contract; they didn't "give" him the largest contract in baseball.
Go Yanks!
Man, this is a bummer. I just typed up a rather long comment to this post and posted it. But when I checked to see if it was posted VTK's new comment was posted, and not mine. It's a bummer because the second time around is never as good as the first, but I'll give it a try:
First, I quite enjoy this post and am sorry that I haven't been reading the comments (or that I haven't commented earlier). Interesting topic. For the record, I haven't yet read VTK's most recent (long!) comment.
I agree with Dewy24 and Ian that A-Rod to the Yankees is a Pyrrhic victory. But it wouldn't make my top-10 because the story hasn't played out yet. If they win the World Series the next ten years in a row because of A-Rod, nobody is going to think they made a mistake taking over that ridiculous contract (or signing him to the new and still ridiculous one). So far, though, it's starting to look like a Pyrrhic victory. I wouldn't want him on my team and am glad that he stayed on the Yankees.
I really like Duffless's suggestions, especially Chris Farley. But I'm not so sure about Marie Curie. She accomplished a shitload in her life, winning two Nobel prizes (just learned that!) and making huge advances in science, health, technology, etc... Yeah, she paid the price of her life, but I'm not sure that she wouldn't have made that deal if she had known about it (did she?). She ends up the most famous female scientist in history and one of the top five or ten (?) scientists in history. I don't know if death is that bad a price.
As for the Mitchell report, I dispute the allegation that I mentioned that as bait to get you to defend the Yankees. You always talk about baseball and this is, at this moment, the biggest thing in baseball. I'm willing to bet one of the most important events in the history of the sport. I thought you'd have a good take on it and wanted to hear it.
--akboognish
Oh, as for this whole debate about facts, I think it's largely immaterial. Whether the Yankees "gave" him the contract or not, they "paid" him the contract, so they paid the most for any player and didn't get the most in return. He's been a bust and not worth the money. That they now "gave" him the new contract is salt on the wound, unless, as I said above, things change in the future. I'm willing to bet that they won't.
False. And I really don't know how else to say this. I'm getting tired of going in circles on this point in a comments section that I had hoped would be more interesting than this. 1. Forget about who "gave" him the contract. 2. They didn't "pay" him the whole contract and consequently they didn't "pay the most for any player". They paid approximately $20 million a year and Texas paid the remaining approximately $5 million a year. $20 million a year. You know, like the $20 million a year, Manny Ramirez gets from his contract with the Boston Red Sox. The Yankees did not give A-Rod, nor did they pay A-Rod in full on the largest contract in history, as I've written about 7 times by now. I hope that this point is clear now. Please for the love of god, let this point be clear.
As for the Mitchell Report, I think it's a drop in the bucket and I don't really consider it that damning of an indictment of the Yankees or any other individual team. The evidence came from the Bay Area BALCO situation and from two trainers who worked out of NYC, so players associated with those 4 teams made up a substantial part of the list. I'm sure if those trainers came from Chicago, LA, Boston, or anywhere else, the make-up of the list would be different. I didn't comment on your Mitchell Report question, because frankly neither this post nor that post has anything to do with it so I didn't feel the need to respond to what seemed like a baited question (my apologies for being wrong on that).
And since this post has gone well past the point of no return on baseball and A-Rod, I don't think he's been a bust. He's won 2 MVPs in 4 years for chrissake. He was "clutch" all year for the Yankees in 07, piling up loads of game winning hits and homeruns, without which they probably wouldn't have even made the playoffs. He also hit a home run in Game 4 of the ALDS - the game in which they got eliminated. I've never been a big A-Rod apologist, but I think he's being tried on performances in years past, not on his performances in the past year. And I don't see the new contract as salt in the wound. He's the best player in baseball, in his prime and will help make them a contender and possibly a World Series winner for years to come. I wish him the best.
Hey - how about some pyrrhic victories that don't have to do with the Yankees. Anyone?
Now this is a comment section!
Ian. In defense of Dan he is not your typical Yankee fan. First of all he is not named Vinnie and wear a wife beater while driving his IROC to Yankee Stadium. He's actually an unusually honest Yankee fan and not a knee jerk Sox hater although he is a bit unfair to Pedro. But he is a Yankee fan so technically is a jerk. A good friend of mine, but officially I have to call him a jerk.
Regarding this whole debate Dan is correct in pointing out that I was incorrect in saying that the Yankees gave A-Rod the biggest contract in history. They did assume the biggest contract and the Rangers did pay a sizable portion of it. So, yes, that point was wrong. But my argument rested on 11 points I made in my original comment, only one of which was wrong.
1. The Sox make a deal for A-Rod in 2003. CORRECT!
2. Deal would require A-Rod to decrease his salary. CORRECT!
3. MLBPU kills the deal. CORRECT!
4. Yankee trade for A-Rod. CORRECT!
5. Give him largest deal in history INCORRECT!!
6. Boss talks shit. CORRECT!
7. Sox get Schilling CORRECT!
8. Schilling pivotal in 2004, 2007. CORRECT!
9. A-Rod great in regular season. CORRECT!
10. A-Rod sucks in post season. CORRECT!
11. Yankees haven't won the World Series since aquiring him. CORRECT!
Unlike most Yankee fans Dan received an education. He is skilled in the arts or rhetoric and dialectics and will try to get you into an argument on your weakest point even though the rest of your argument may be strong.
So I still believe that the A-Rod deal was Pyrrhic in nature. Was it top 10? Maybe not but my original intent was really just to restate to Dan that A-Rod sucks and the Yankees haven't won a World Series in over 7 years.
Pedro is an old man beater.
As to the allegations that I only responded to 1 of 11 points, allow me to consider each of your abovelisted 11 as they pertain to your stated thesis that the 2003 A-Rod acquisition was a pyrrhic victory for the Yankees:
1. irrelevant.
2. irrelevant.
3. irrelevant.
4. technically accurate.
5. universally agreed to be incorrect.
6. and the sky is blue and ...?
7/8. this is an interesting angle but unfortunately for you also irrelevant, fake bloody sock notwithstanding. It seems that your contention here is that the acquisition of Schilling which was a consequence of the Sox failure to acquire A-Rod (which again is irrelevant), was instrumental in a defeat of pyrrhic nature/proportions of the Yankees, who had acquired A-Rod. This is a muddled connection at best. But I want to address what I think your point is, that Schilling was some sort of epic Yankee killer in the 04 ALCS. For the record, and this is a fact, though I won't bother footnoting, Schilling's line against the Yankees in 2 games in that series is this: 10 innings pitched, 7 ER, 6.30 ERA, 1 win, 1 loss. Hardly epic. The comeback against the Yankees and the Yankees ultimate defeat in the 04 ALCS may very well be viewed as epic or monumental (and I'm sure I'm opening the door for all of you to wax nostalgic and yankeebash on this one), but it wasn't at all pyrrhic, and Schilling's role in it had nothing to do with any purported pyrrhicosity of the A-Rod acquisition.
9. correct.
10. occasionally correct.
11. technically correct, but not really relevant. why? because not winning the world series isn't the same as having your ranks depleted to the point where you lose a war. There are many teams that don't win the world series every year.
so that's 3 points that are irrelevant and 7 that are technically correct but of tenuous relevance. And one that we all agree was totally wrong.
Ultimately, as I suspected (and knew, really), dewy24 was just baiting me with all this. And I apologize to you, Ian, that you got caught up in his gnattish games. It's not fair to you or anyone else.
At most, the Yankees not winning the World Series in the last 7 years is a bummer. Hardly pyrrhic. If the A-Rod trade had landed them the best player in baseball but cost them several other players who turned out to be phenomenal and would have surely won them a World Series, then that would most definitely have been a pyrrhic victory of trade. But as such, it's just a trade that's had mixed results, including some disappointing results in the postseason, and has yet to finish its story, as akboognish pointed out. And I think that's really all I have to say about the A-Rod trade in this pyrrhic victory discussion.
postscript - it just occurred to me that what you were really trying to construct here as a pyrrhic trade has a very good example in American sports: The Minnesota Vikings' trade for Herschel Walker. The Vikings won nothing with Walker, and the Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls specifically as a result of the contributions of the players that they got in return for Walker.
I can see how you disagree that it is Pyrrhic but I'm not sure how you deem irrelevant the history of how A-Rod ended up with the Yankees and not the Sox.
Ian, I should add that it is impossible to get the last word in with Dan. What he lacks in argument he makes up for in typing skill and endurance.
Irrelevant only to whether or not it was pyrrhic. Relevant to Yankees-Sox history for sure.
Catch 22 - I'll gladly give a Sox fan the last word, so long as that word is logically sound, accurate, and irrefutable. I'll never admit that I'm unable to refute the word in some way or form.
Nomar sucks.
Point #8: Yes, Schilling sucked it up in game 2 of the ALCS. But after two come-from-behind, extra-inning games in games 4 and 5, Schilling took the mound and pitched 7 strong innings and only allowed one Bernie Williams home run. In game 1, the Yankees scored 8 runs in the first 7 innings. Game 2: 3 runs in the first 7 innings; Game 3: 17 runs in first 7 innings; Game 4: 4 runs in first 7 innings; Game 5: 4 runs in first 7 innings. Game 6 was the first game in the series that the Yankees did not lead going into the 7th inning (or ANY inning up to that point, in fact). Schilling holding the Yankees to no runs through 6, 1 run through 7, was huge. And it's safe to say that it was the difference-maker in the series. The Sox scored 4 runs in Game 6, but 3 were from a home-run. The Yankees pitching was excellent, including that game, and their hitting was destroying the Sox pitchers. Schilling's stop in Game 6, (with a hurt ankle that was a huge factor in his sub-par performance in Game 1 and that was gerry-rigged up so he could pitch Game 6--all undeniable facts), was huge, and pretty clearly the difference-maker in that game.
And I say this as somebody who hates Schilling because of his politics. And for the most part, wish he wasn't on the Sox at all or ever. But you can't deny him his contribution to that year's ALCS (and WS, for that matter--his line in that game is great, too).
So, Dewy24's comment (that Schilling's contribution to the 2004 WS victory was pivotal) is correct and irrefutable. VTK's argument to the contrary, of course, is irrelevant, since his main point is that Schilling's contribution to the victory, and the victory itself, are both irrelevant to the pyrrhic/non-pyrrhic nature of the Yankee's defeat. But that's where you have to get back to the other points Dewy24 makes: that the Sox went after A-Rod but the Yankees got him, instead. So the Sox then put all their energy into Schilling, and got him. If they had succeeded with A-Rod they likely would not have gone after Schilling as hard, and had they not got Schilling they would not have had the player who was so important to them in Game 6 of the ALCS. Furthermore, had the Sox got A-Rod, the Yankees would not have had him. No A-Rod, no Slappy. In fact, Slappy would have been on the Sox, pretty much guaranteeing a total meltdown by the Sox given their long history of melt-downs. Instead, it was the Yankees who melted down, with Yankee Stadium going into hysterics and raining the field with trash, causing the players to be pulled and the police to come out in riot gear. The shoe, bloody as it was, was on the other foot for the first time, and A-Rod being signed to the Yankees was essential. Thus, a Pyrrhic victory ("a victory with devastating cost to the victor" (Wikipedia)): they are the victor in the race to secure A-Rod, yet their victory comes at a devastating cost: their vanquished opponents sign a pitcher who makes the difference in their WS quest and they are saddled with Mr. Slappy and go on to perform the greatest choke in sports and are the losers in the greatest come-back in sports.
all of which is conjecture and misdirection.
(and did you really just quote wikipedia as your definitive source? vtk rule of thumb: if you can't get away with it in a court of law, you can't get away with it here.)
My Lexis search of all U.S. cases, federal and state, comes up with 216 cites to Wikipedia. Not that it's always a failsafe source, of course, which is why I always state when I'm using it, but you're wrong that "you can't get away with it in a court of law."
Conjecture? What about Barry Bonds ("He's # 1, but it may very well end up landing him in jail and out of the Hall of Fame, and possibly the record books that he was initially trying to get in) or Len Bias ("would have fit in perfectly with the Celtics, allowing them to rest their two big forward all-stars, Larry Bird and Kevin McHale. This would have prolonged their careers and the Celtics' dominance well into the 90's. Would.")? I agree that in Len's case, it might have been a Pyrrhic victory, since he gets drafted to the Celtics, only to kill himself that night. But for the Celtics? That's pure conjecture. Who knows what would have happened. In contrast, the Yankees sucking it up in the ALCS, and A-Rod's role in it, is a fact. As I said earlier, I don't put this Pyrrhic victory in my top-10 because the story isn't over. But I'd place it higher than Barry Bonds (which shouldn't make the list or Len Bias, at least from the Celtics perspective.
The fact that 216 lame judges allowed wikipedia to be cited, does not in anyway legitimize it. The point is this: would you cite it in a court of law? I wouldn't.
Please provide me with a full accounting of your top 10 list, so that I may apply the same stringent levels of criticism and require the same defenses that you do of mine. At that point, I'd be glad to handle this lovely piece of misdirection: "In contrast, the Yankees sucking it up in the ALCS, and A-Rod's role in it, is a fact."
Dewy 24,
I don't know Dan but I suspect he could have been on a top rated debating team in college.
I am still licking my wounds after his last reply.
Best,
Ian
Practice makes perfect, Ian. This comment section is representative of the type of tag team debating I have to deal with on a regular basis. One of them will bait me out, then step away and let another one argue, then pop back in and take another turn, then tag out to yet another one. I have to be hypervigilant around these guys. Each one gets to get there yankeebashing in and then return to their lives, while I end up repeating myself ten thousand times. For example, I think that I've effectively stated my case rejecting the characterization of the A-Rod acquisition as a pyrrhic victory several times, even going so far as to say "that's really all I have to say about the A-Rod trade in this pyrrhic victory discussion" 9 comments ago. And then I get an email from akboognish, who I had suspected was secretly posting under the name Ian to rile me up (wrong about that - sorry), and he informs me that he has "HOUSED" me and suggests that my alerting him to the post was in fact a pyrrhic victory for me. Well. Obviously this won't stand. We won't have anyone thinking they "HOUSED" me around here. More importantly, akboognish's suggestion that I have suffered a pyrrhic victory in my own post on pyrrhic victories is absurd enough that I am satisfied that he does not actually appreciate the meaning of the words "pyrrhic victory". In his effort to claim the ultimate ironic victory, he has fallen prey to his own hubris, and the only thing stopping his proclamation from being a pyrrhic victory in and of itself is the sad reality that at no point did he score the victory part of a pyrrhic victory. If you engage in a battle and lose, that's not a pyrrhic victory. Also, if there is nothing that could be characterized as a victory, if there is a situation that doesn't even involve the victory-loss spectrum, and then there are some negative repercussions or results of that situation, that is also not a pyrrhic victory, since there was no primary victory (though there may be a false perception of a victory from a hypersensitive downtrodden populace). A pyrrhic victory requires that there is a definitive victory and requires that the consequences of the circumstances of that victory lead to a greater, more devastating loss. Pyrrhus won the battle, but lost the war. He scored the definitive victories over the mighty Roman army, yet the circumstances of those victories (the high number of casualties) led to the scenario in which he suffered a loss much greater than the victory (the war (the Romans lost the battles but were able to replenish their troops whereas Pyrrhus was not)).
So now that I'm not buried in work like I was yesterday, I'll gladly address what you describe as a "HOUS[ING]". Your aggrandizing of fatboy is downright stirring. Inspirational really. I almost like that disgusting scumbag now. Unfortunately for you, it's also irrelevant to the debate at hand, which is why I called it misdirection in my short reply. (and I really can't believe I'm still wasting my time arguing this) As per my definition above, there was no "victory" for the Yankees in the acquisition of A-Rod. It is only Red Sox fans who characterize it as such because of their failure to acquire him and the subsequent acquisition of him by their sworn enemies. For the Yankees, this was a trade for a player that filled a need. A team that has made 6 out of the previous 8 world series and has won 4 of those world championships, the acquisition of a 3rd baseman is not a "victory". You're a prisoner of your own perspective on this one. Next, your connection of the acquisition of A-Rod to the Schilling signing is conjecture. Next, Schilling won one game in one battle with the Yankees. Hardly anything that would rise to the stature of winning a war. (And sorry, does he not get any blame for losing that first game? And do all the other players that won the 3 other games for the Sox as well as partnering with him on the game 6 victory, get any credit? no?) Fatboy's performance in the 04 World Series is totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether the A-Rod acquisition was pyrrhic. totally. Also, Yankee hitting has teed off on fatboy since that game 6. And the "war" continues...
Ok, so I'm done with the muddled Schilling argument. What else is there? Nothing. Only a Sox fan (or a yankeehater of equal vitriol) could view the A-Rod acquisition as a pyrrhic victory and they do so because they are blinded to the true scope and nature of "victories" in this arena. Perhaps that is because they are so new to winning. (Nouveau riche?) Congratulations on your second World Series in 4 years. That's pretty good. I guess.
In response to the accusations of conjecture in my top ten list, let me just say that, ultimately, there may be technical debates about certain entries in my top ten and whether or not they involve conjecture (as defined by American jurisprudence) in some elements or interpretations. But, come on, dudes and dudettes. I just published a list of the top ten pyrrhic victories of all time. Has anyone ever tried to do that before? There was bound to be a few proverbial broken eggs, but there can be no doubt that the greater good was served in this endeavor. This post is already on the second page of search results for a google search of "pyrrhic victories" and it's the # 1 result for a google search of "top ten pyrrhic victories". We're making history here kids! Take that you Roman scum! Victory is ours! We're # 1!
How about Big Ben's superbowl preformance? He had a stellar playoff run but ran out of gas in the superbowl.
I am not lumping the entire team together here just Ben's preformance.
Does he get a pass because they won
or is it a classic example of a "pyrrhic victory"
Joel
First point: Wikipedia is cited by courts. Fact. "216 lame judges"? Is Judge Posner a lame judge? As much as I sometimes disagree with him, I can't deny that he's probably the single most influential judge in the country. And he says: "Wikipedia is a terrific resource...Partly because it so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate. [But] It wouldn’t be right to use it in a critical issue. If the safety of a product is at issue, you wouldn’t look it up in Wikipedia." Check out this
interesting article on the subject.
So I cite to Wikipedia for the defintion of Pyhrric victory. I think it's fine--it's easily refutable by anybody and the definition itself isn't at issue. It's just there for reference. Since nobody has disputed Wikipedia's definition, I the tactic of attacking my use of that reference is completely bogus and done only for diversion and obfuscation.
Second: A lot of your response talks about my email to you where I said you were HOUSED, and that maybe you had a Pyrrhic victory for baiting me into this ridiculous charade that none of us appear able to stop. I was thinking that your "victory" was in getting me to contribute to this discussion and waste a lot of my time, but I can see your point, and perhaps this wasn't a victory at all. So fine--I declare a loss on declaring (off this blog, as a joke) that you may have had a Pyrrhic victory. You had no victory, and therefore nothing Pyrrhic about what you had, if anything.
Third: I raised the issue of conjecture in your list because you denied my argument because it was conjecture. Can't have it both ways, dude. If your only response to my long post is "all of which is conjecture and misdirection", I have every right to look at your list and see what in that was conjecture (misdirection being a less objective word). Your new response, after my declaration of HOUSING, is slightly more on point and relevant, as explained below:
Fourth: Finally, your main point and the only thing that you ultimately rest on to disclaim the Pyhrric nature of the Yankee's "victory" in acquiring A-Rod: that it wasn't a "victory". Maybe this is a completely subjective word, and impossible to assign to an event such as acquiring A-Rod. But I don't think so. Whatever team signed A-Rod would be deemed the "winner" in the race to sign A-Rod. The Yankees won. Why is that not a victory? You can go off all you want on the rest of the stuff, but I think you're just plain wrong that the Yankees' signing of A-Rod wasn't a victory. So for the sake of argument, if I accept your premise that the signing of A-Rod was IN NO WAY a victory of any variety, in any form, than sure: it can't be a Pyhrric victory. Obviously.
Finally, you make a secondary argument which is important, that fatboy's performance in the 04 ALCS is irrelevant in determining the Pyhrric nature of the Yankee's victory in acquiring A-Rod. The connection is that, as Dewy24 said, if the Sox had got A-Rod, they wouldn't have signed Schilling who ended up being a "pivotal" player for the Sox. I think this contributes to the Pyhrric nature of the Yankee's victory, since, if true, is a not only a contributing factor in their own defeat (Slappy) but a contributing factor in the Sox' win (Schilling holding the Yankees to 1 run in 7 innings).
But notice the "if true" language above. You're slipping, VTK: it turns out that this logic is based on a fallacy: that the Sox turned their attention to Schilling after losing A-Rod. The fact is that Schilling was acquired BEFORE A-Rod, in December of 2003. He even made recruiting calls to A-Rod when the Sox were hunting him. I didn't too much research because this is probably irrefutable, but here's
an article to confirm it.
So where's that leave us? Since there really is no link between A-Rod's signing and Schilling's signing, all we've got is the Yankee's acquisition of A-Rod, by itself, being a Pyhrric victory. 0 for 7 in the ALCS and the Slap could be enough to qualify, but the argument that the whole team lost that series is compelling, too. I will admit my own bias and declare that I now believe that answer to not be objectively attainable. Some might argue it Pyhrric, some might argue it not, but those conclusions are going to be necessarily subjective, and therefore creating rounds of winless tic-tac-toe. (The conclusion that it's not a victory I will continue to dispute).
A final final: Although I didn't declare the "housing" publicly, I will now do so because I am the one who had to go dig up the best argument you had, VTK. HOUSED at your own game!
Dude. C'mon. You're either intentionally wasting my time (which I'd ask you not to do) or you totally just HOUSED yourself. I'm not the one who made the fallacy of an argument that Schilling was acquired as a consequence of the Sox "losing" out on A-Rod! It was your gang of rabblerousers. Look it up (above). It was an element of Dewy24's initial mischievous baiting comment, later picked up by you, one akboognish. The only time I ever mentioned it was in the context of the very inclusion of it being irrelevant. Since it was the argument of dewy24 and yourself, I didn't feel the burden of proof was on me even if it was relevant, which it wasn't. Any logic that I was putting out was hypothetical, since I was rejecting the relevance of your statement to the greater argument at hand. I'm not the one who is "slipping", if my logic is based on a fallacy, it is your fallacy that I'd prefaced my statements by calling irrelevant, so it has no bearing on the logic of my statement of non-pyrrhicism, and most importantly, I'm certainly not the one who got HOUSED here, my friend. But I think you know that.
(also, please note that I reject your claims in "Fourth". The initial victory part was not the whole basis of my refutation. Please reread my post.)
More importantly, can someone explain to me why Tony Allen fouled Chauncey Billups on his shot with 00.1 seconds left in a tie game? Anyone? What the fuck.
I don't think so, Joel.
Yeah, I know Dewy24 relied on the fallacy, and I relied on it too. You're slipping because you didn't go after that point, instead choosing to argue that the Yankee's signing of A-Rod didn't lead them to lose the 04 ALCS and that Dewy24's use of the word "give" was factually incorrect. You could have prevented this whole thing if you had gone right for the jugular and exposed the fundamental inaccuracy in Dewy24's argument. Instead, you allowed me to extract myself from that argument, reset my argument that it's a Pyrrhic victory by only resting on A-Rod's failures in that series (especially the Slap) and Schilling's accomplishments in Game 6. You argue someplace that losing a WS wasn't a devastating loss of a Pyrrhic nature, but that's probably because you don't want to think of it the way it really is: the greatest choke in the history of sports. Period. That it allowed the Red Sox to unburden themselves of their curse and long, long history of choking adds so much salt to the wound. Maybe you don't feel it, fine. Like I said, it is probably all subjective.
I'll go further and say that maybe the reason you can't accept that it's was a Pyrrhic victory is because it's not over. Forget all this crap about whether signing A-Rod was a win or whether losing the ALCS to the Sox after being up 3-0 was a devastating loss. The story isn't over yet. It was only one WS. A-Rod is still on the team. Baseball will still be played next year (at this point, I'll say unfortunately). Who knows what will happen. I'll accept that reasoning as making this not a Pyrrhic victory if you'll accept that if the Yankees do not win another WS while A-Rod is on the team, it was.
As for wasting your time, that is definitely not my goal. None of us has to write another word to this thing and the four people who are still reading will probably be happier for it. But I came late to the debate and haven't talked smack about the Sox and Yankees for a while, so I'm enjoying it. That's why I was suggesting that, if your goal was to suck me into this thing by giving me the heads up that it was going on, you succeeded but with devastating results, in that I've prolonged your agony and destroyed your livelihood. Or something like that. I see that that wasn't your goal, but the idea still cracks me up.
I don't know enough about Tony Allen, but the Globe is already reporting that the Detroit players intended to suck him into that foul, because they knew he was cold off the bench. I want to know why Paul Pierce took that last shot. He's a choker.
How about Atkins? Advocates a high-meat, low carb diet, makes millions convincing millions to do it, and dies of a heart attack. The company he forms goes bankrupt a couple of years after his death and his name becomes a joke.
It would be literally impossible for me to describe how sick I am of this argument. I'm "slipping" because I didn't spend even more time researching every element of a crap bait argument meant to make me waste time on pointless research, an argument that I deemed logically flawed and irrelevant from the start, an argument that it now turns out was fraught with inaccuracies. I'm slipping because I didn't waste even more time researching your argument (I say "your" since you happily picked it up in all its absurdity where dewy24 and Ian left it off). I'm slipping. that's rich. Well, I guess I slipped then. Nice job, Iceman!
That's two glaring inaccuracies in your (the) argument. And I'm supposed to either trust that everything else is accurate or waste my time doing your research? ridiculous. Now you really are trying to waste my time. Furthermore, you misstate my position again in your first paragraph (hint: "WS"). How am I supposed to participate in an argument on good faith when my opponents repeatedly use false premises and (tactically?) misstate my positions in their responses. So, with apologies to any yankeehaters who are late to the argument and want to join in the attempted bashing, I am now officially done with this argument. You all can continue and try to claim victories or mistakenly accuse me of a pyrrhic victory all you like, but the only thing you will find yourselves in possession of is what I like to call an "imaginary" victory. I officially reject whatever it is you write in your next response intended to get "the last word". I also reject your rejection of this rejection.
I was at the Celtics game and I'll tell you that that was the loudest and most passionate I've ever seen a Celtics crowd in a regular season game since the 80s. By a French Lick Indiana country mile. The C's were up 2 to 8 points all game, then went down 7 points midway through the 4th quarter. Then the crowd juiced up the C's and they came back to tie behind KG jumpers, a great Ray Allen dunk (yes) and two off balance clutch Ray Allen 3's. Those two had 50 points between them and Pierce had 11 and was missing everything, getting charges, etc. With 5 seconds left and the game tied, KG steals the ball and calls a TO. So who does Doc call the play for. Pierce. He's got to have the ball. He's just got to have the ball. Ok, fine. But Paul, how about not taking a shot with 3 seconds left on the clock, leaving Detroit another possession? He misses, of course. Detroit takes a TO with 1.7 seconds left, inbounds from halfcourt and Chauncey goes right at Tony Allen and the idiot fouls him. What a disappointment. Fortunately there were some drunk guys down a row and over from us a few seats, who kept falling over on top of the terrified 14 year old kids in front of them. Highly entertaining. I don't know how they didn't get kicked out.
Rondo looked great in the first half but Billups was eating his lunch in the 2 half of the game.
And I like the gutsy call from from Doc going with Tony Allen to guard Billups in last 1:29 of the game.
Maybe he should have pulled that trigger when Rondo starting getting into foul trouble a little earlier.
Joel
That gutsy call lost them the game. It was Tony's idiot defending with 00.1 seconds left that lost the game.
I wrote gutsy not smart,but who else was he going to put in there Rondo?
anyone smart enough not to foul a clutch player like Billups with 0.1 seconds on the clock in a tie game at home when you have momentum. Or if Allen's your choice, you drill it into his head 7000 times in the timeout. It was an inexcusable foul.
Dan,
Joel had brought up interesting point with regard to a pyrrhic victory.
Is it possible that and individual can have a pyrrhic victory well the team does not.
He used Ben Roethlisberger’s rather pedestrian performance in Superbowl XL:
9 for 21, 147 yards and 2 picks and QB rating 22.6,after a choke preformance like that and still win the game might be perceived as a individual pyrrhic victory
for Ben Roethlisberger.
Dan, can we both agree that a pyrrhic victory can be a subjective thing, can Ben Roethlisberger say “hey I sucked in the biggest game of my life and my team picked up the slack for me and we won.”
Just an observation form a Detroit Loins fan.
Best,
Ian
Well, I agree with most of your analysis there, Ian, but I don't think it fits the definition of p-vic since the end result was that he won the Super Bowl. The end result of a p-vic would involve some causality between an initial victory and a resultant devastating defeat on a greater scale than the victory. He won the Super Bowl. Sure, he had a sub-par game but hardly devastating, let alone a defeat. I just think this is stretching the bounds of what could be considered a p-vic too much; if we get this subjective with it, the concept ceases to have its original meaning.
Lions and Pirates fan? Did you grow up in Detroit with your formative sports years coming in the late eighties/early nineties when the Tigers had past their mid-80s prime and the Pirates were good? I can't imagine you grew up in Pittsburgh at any stage and chose the Lions over the Steelers. Grew up in Detroit but your dad was from Pittsburgh? I'm just curious, not criticizing. My sports allegiances are geographically varied too.
I grew up in Flint Michigan,I was always a Willy Stargell & Dave Parker fan back in the day.
And my brother played SS for the lions in the early 90's.
Ian
Yep. that'd do it. The We Are Family Pirates. Did you ever meet Barry Sanders? Best running back I've ever seen (with the possible exception of Walter Payton).
I’m sorry for showing up late to this string but I have to throw my hat in on this one....a Yankee hat. Yankee fans exist and even thrive within this fair city. How quickly you forget the decades of loss. I'm amazed at Sox fan's fascination with the Yankee organization, even in victory. You are the champs. Let me say it again, you are the champs. One last time, you are the champs. Why do you feel the need to even talk about the Yankees? You’ve won the World Series, not once but twice. Can't you let go of the hate to enjoy for a little while? The only thing I can think of more painful and sad than 8+ decades of frustration is failure to focus on what really matters when the time finally comes, your team’s accomplishments, not our team’s failure.
I know we are champs and the only time I really think about the Yankees is when a Yankee fan tells me that I have to rid myself of all this so called malice that I have for the New York Yankees.
I think whats going on here is that the Yankees are kind of not in the conversation anymore with regard to a baseball dynasty and maybe you need to convice yourself that your team is still relevant
by saying that we(RSN) need to stop loathing the Yanks and relish our new found success and move on.
Well I can assure you this Red Sox fan has moved on,I promise.Maybe you should give up on all of this self loathing and move on your self and worry about the Blue Jays or Hank or A-rod what ever.....
Thank you Yankee fan for your concern for my well being and I hope that this lull in the Yankee dynasty last long enough to turn all of you into Mets fan!
Now that would be pretty funny!
And Dan that goes double for you!!
Red Sox Nation
wow. "red sox nation" just called me out for something I didn't say. nice. I'm impressed.
Your such a Yankee ball washer,I thought I would call you out.
"Red Sox Nation"
Good one, "red sox nation". Once again, I'm impressed.
Post a Comment