tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post3947608222871769816..comments2023-08-06T05:13:26.415-04:00Comments on Von Trapper Keeper: Top Ten Pyrrhic Victories of All TimeDan Nolanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-86664069808904453622007-12-26T20:52:00.000-05:002007-12-26T20:52:00.000-05:00Good one, "red sox nation". Once again, I'm impre...Good one, "red sox nation". Once again, I'm impressed.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-63693192281250496402007-12-26T14:44:00.000-05:002007-12-26T14:44:00.000-05:00Your such a Yankee ball washer,I thought I would c...Your such a Yankee ball washer,I thought I would call you out.<BR/><BR/>"Red Sox Nation"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-88417450481897177352007-12-25T21:01:00.000-05:002007-12-25T21:01:00.000-05:00wow. "red sox nation" just called me out for some...wow. "red sox nation" just called me out for something I didn't say. nice. I'm impressed.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-2371362604981871352007-12-25T17:01:00.000-05:002007-12-25T17:01:00.000-05:00I know we are champs and the only time I really th...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.<BR/><BR/> 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 <BR/>by saying that we(RSN) need to stop loathing the Yanks and relish our new found success and move on.<BR/><BR/>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.....<BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/>Now that would be pretty funny!<BR/><BR/>And Dan that goes double for you!!<BR/><BR/>Red Sox NationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-38081243919103801512007-12-24T14:36:00.000-05:002007-12-24T14:36:00.000-05:00I’m sorry for showing up late to this string but I...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-60625293966596667022007-12-21T14:35:00.000-05:002007-12-21T14:35:00.000-05:00Yep. that'd do it. The We Are Family Pirates. D...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).Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-20659633917283933072007-12-21T12:07:00.000-05:002007-12-21T12:07:00.000-05:00I grew up in Flint Michigan,I was always a Willy S...I grew up in Flint Michigan,I was always a Willy Stargell & Dave Parker fan back in the day.<BR/><BR/>And my brother played SS for the lions in the early 90's.<BR/><BR/>IanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-11316730220428551202007-12-20T17:35:00.000-05:002007-12-20T17:35:00.000-05:00Well, I agree with most of your analysis there, Ia...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-58987681687357892912007-12-20T16:44:00.000-05:002007-12-20T16:44:00.000-05:00Dan,Joel had brought up interesting point with reg...Dan,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Joel had brought up interesting point with regard to a pyrrhic victory.<BR/>Is it possible that and individual can have a pyrrhic victory well the team does not.<BR/><BR/>He used Ben Roethlisberger’s rather pedestrian performance in Superbowl XL:<BR/>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<BR/>for Ben Roethlisberger.<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Just an observation form a Detroit Loins fan.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>IanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-59884955908110151932007-12-20T13:19:00.000-05:002007-12-20T13:19:00.000-05:00anyone smart enough not to foul a clutch player li...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 Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-89874647707073022732007-12-20T12:50:00.000-05:002007-12-20T12:50:00.000-05:00I wrote gutsy not smart,but who else was he going ...I wrote gutsy not smart,but who else was he going to put in there Rondo?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-80726836938106713412007-12-20T12:32:00.000-05:002007-12-20T12:32:00.000-05:00That gutsy call lost them the game. It was Tony's...That gutsy call lost them the game. It was Tony's idiot defending with 00.1 seconds left that lost the game.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-11784894690657902332007-12-20T12:27:00.000-05:002007-12-20T12:27:00.000-05:00Rondo looked great in the first half but Billups w...Rondo looked great in the first half but Billups was eating his lunch in the 2 half of the game.<BR/><BR/>And I like the gutsy call from from Doc going with Tony Allen to guard Billups in last 1:29 of the game.<BR/><BR/>Maybe he should have pulled that trigger when Rondo starting getting into foul trouble a little earlier. <BR/><BR/>JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-47895799813087221012007-12-20T11:13:00.000-05:002007-12-20T11:13:00.000-05:00It would be literally impossible for me to describ...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!<BR/><BR/>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 <B>again</B> 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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>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.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-61517737797098580702007-12-20T01:47:00.000-05:002007-12-20T01:47:00.000-05:00Yeah, I know Dewy24 relied on the fallacy, and I r...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.akboognishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12552719022086863177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-39158810046593857882007-12-19T22:55:00.000-05:002007-12-19T22:55:00.000-05:00I don't think so, Joel.I don't think so, Joel.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-91311047251099429232007-12-19T22:54:00.000-05:002007-12-19T22:54:00.000-05:00Dude. C'mon. You're either intentionally wasting...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.<BR/><BR/>(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.)<BR/><BR/>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.Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-73301321441208988482007-12-19T17:46:00.001-05:002007-12-19T17:46:00.001-05:00First point: Wikipedia is cited by courts. Fact. ...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 <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow"><BR/>interesting article</A> on the subject.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://www.kffl.com/article.php/3783/88" REL="nofollow"><BR/>an article</A> to confirm it.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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!akboognishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12552719022086863177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-59893442504357629122007-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:002007-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:00How about Big Ben's superbowl preformance? He had ...How about Big Ben's superbowl preformance? He had a stellar playoff run but ran out of gas in the superbowl.<BR/>I am not lumping the entire team together here just Ben's preformance.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Does he get a pass because they won<BR/>or is it a classic example of a "pyrrhic victory"<BR/><BR/>JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-78892128410581330542007-12-19T13:56:00.000-05:002007-12-19T13:56:00.000-05:00Practice makes perfect, Ian. This comment section...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)).<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-54350385455642423102007-12-19T12:06:00.000-05:002007-12-19T12:06:00.000-05:00Dewy 24,I don't know Dan but I suspect he could ha...Dewy 24,<BR/><BR/>I don't know Dan but I suspect he could have been on a top rated debating team in college.<BR/><BR/>I am still licking my wounds after his last reply.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/> IanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-83474817493789869842007-12-18T14:53:00.000-05:002007-12-18T14:53:00.000-05:00The fact that 216 lame judges allowed wikipedia to...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.<BR/><BR/>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."Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-68764221306742395002007-12-18T14:34:00.000-05:002007-12-18T14:34:00.000-05:00My Lexis search of all U.S. cases, federal and sta...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."<BR/><BR/>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.akboognishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12552719022086863177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-31581961171480421612007-12-18T14:07:00.000-05:002007-12-18T14:07:00.000-05:00all of which is conjecture and misdirection.(and d...<B>all</B> of which is conjecture and misdirection.<BR/><BR/>(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.)Dan Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13981886295607717368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18246530.post-62357729804548433582007-12-18T14:00:00.000-05:002007-12-18T14:00:00.000-05:00Point #8: Yes, Schilling sucked it up in game 2 of...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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.akboognishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12552719022086863177noreply@blogger.com