bewerbung neuer mitglieder » -for would have been well-deserved,

CHICAGO -- The 2001 Mariners won 116 games, and they couldnt do it. The 1995 Indians were 56 games over .500, and they couldnt do it. The 2004 Cardinals won 105 games, and all theyre known for is being That Team That Lost to the Red Sox.Those three tremendous teams all had one thing in common -- and this is where we would advise the 2016 Cubs to pay close attention. Once upon a time, all of them were clearly The Best Darned Team in Baseball, just like the Cubs of this year. Over the regular season, that is. Ah, but what did that get them?Uh, not a World Series parade. Thats for sure. You know what they got out of it? An unhappy ending, nightmares that keep springing back to life and scars that never heal. Thats what.So even as the Cubs head back to Wrigley Field on Saturday night for an epic National League Championship Series Game 6 that Cubs Nation might never forget, Joe Maddon knows the landscape is still filled with land mines. And not all those land mines are named Clayton Kershaw, either. The biggest land mine of all might just be known as baseball -- or, at least, baseball in the multilayered wild-card era.I think that the system is built for the best team having a chance to lose, Maddon said with a knowing chuckle.Well, he has no idea (by his own admission) how right he is. So here come the shocking details:? This is Year 22 of the wild-card era. Just twice in the previous 21 seasons has a team like the Cubs, which led the major leagues outright in victories, gone on to win the World Series. The only two to win it all: the 1998 and 2009 Yankees. (No National League team has done it in 30 years, since the 1986 Mets.)? But even if we include teams that tied for the best record in the sport, the percentage of best teams that win a championship in baseball is much lower than in the other three major professional sports. In MLB, its just 19 percent (4-of-21) under this format. In the NFL, according to ESPN Stats and Information research, its 31 percent (8-of-26) under the current playoff format. In the NHL, its also 31 percent (11-of-36) since that league expanded to 16 playoff teams. And in the NBA, its a whopping 48 percent (16-of-33) in 33 seasons under the current 16-team setup.Suppose, however, we consider a whole new definition of what constitutes the best teams. Suppose we just look at teams that have won 100 games in the wild-card era. Well, the odds dont get any better. The Cubs are the 23rd team in the wild-card age to win 100 or more. You know how many of the previous 22 went on to win the World Series? That would be precisely two (again, those 1998 and 2009 Yankees).But why? Thats the question. What makes this mission so close to impossible? What is it about the baseball postseason that sends so many great teams careening off an October cliff? We decided to ask a group of men who have lived through it.Now granted, one of them (Joe Torre) managed those 1998 Yankees, a juggernaut that actually made it to the land of champagne and ticker tape. But all of these men have lived through enough October pain to understand exactly why winning a title in baseball is the toughest road in sports. So here are the tales they tell:Theres not enough reward for being greatFirst off, think about what you get for being the best team. You get home-field advantage through the league championship series. And thats about it. But is that enough? Home field is a huge advantage in those other sports. But in baseball, it can actually be a disadvantage, Torre thinks.Im probably in the minority, but I always thought that starting a series on the road was an advantage, he said. And thats because the home team is supposed to win twice. So if you go in and win the first one in their place, now you can run the table. Ive always thought the home team had a lot more pressure on them.And guess which team he uses as the perfect example of that pressure? Right you are: The Cubs, even though the Cubs team that his Dodgers played back in 2008 was never in the same position to win that these Cubs are in. But Torre has spent enough of his life observing Cubs fans to admit he wanted to start that series in Chicago.When I managed the Dodgers in 08, I think we benefited in 08 from them not winning the World Series, Torre said, because we went into Chicago, and all they talked about was this drought or curse or whatever you want to call it -- and we wind up sweeping them. Even though [that Cubs team] had nothing to do with it, [they] still had to answer for it.When things are going great and you see the home team feeding off the euphoria in the stands, its one of the most joyous sights in sports. But when things suddenly stop going so great? Uh-oh. Fans can get tense -- especially in some of Americas most nervous metropolises. And when they do, you know who can get tense right there with them? Were about to let you in on that.Even great teams feel the pressureCharlie Manuel isnt over it yet. In 2011, he managed a Phillies team that was a lot like the 2016 Cubs. It was a team that had That Look from the first day of spring training, and then went out and won 102 games -- five more than any other team in baseball that season.But if you dont recall the 2011 Phillies World Series parade, thats because it never happened, of course. And the manager still stews over all the strange stuff that befell that team in its memorable loss to the wild-card Cardinals in one of the best division series of modern times. There was the Rally Squirrel that unnerved Roy Oswalt. And Cliff Lee blowing a four-run lead (for just the second time in his life). And two balls his outfielders didnt catch in the shadows of a late-afternoon start. And, especially, a traumatic 1-0 loss in Game 5 to a brilliant Chris Carpenter.So five years later, do you want to guess what Manuel remembers most about that Game 5? Its the tension that welled up in the stands and the tension that enveloped his players as the zeroes and the pressure mounted.I remember everything about it, Manuel said. And you know what? The ballpark was tense. Our fans were tense. Our players were tense, especially after we played a few innings and we werent ahead. And all of a sudden, we started swinging real hard. Go back and look at it ... the balls we chased and how hard we were swinging. We were trying to get it all back too quick, when we still had time in the game to be ourselves.On one level, Manuel still finds it amazing that the great players on that team -- a team filled with men who had won a World Series and played in so many postseason games -- would feel that weight, get undone by that pressure. But on another level, he has seen it too many times, over too many years, to be shocked. He was the hitting coach on that 1995 Indians team too -- and even that powerhouse lineup, he said, definitely felt the pressure in losing that World Series to the Braves.You can see it, even on winning teams, Manuel said. There is a feeling there. And whether athletes want to admit it or not, theres a fear of failure that definitely can creep in, in those big games like that.So far in this postseason, the Cubs have been as good as it gets at deflecting those feelings. But it wouldnt be hard to imagine that same tension gripping Wrigley Field on Sunday night, if the Cubs should lose to Kershaw in Game 6 and then have?to win Game 7. Now would it?The pressure grows every yearAt least this Cubs team appears to be in the beginning of what could be an extended window to win. But imagine being the exact opposite of this team -- a group of players who have begun to recognize that theyre at the end of their window and havent won nearly as much as anyone (including them) thinks they should.If that sounds like the Braves of 1991-2005, congratulations. Youve just won a copy of The Life and Times of Jeff Blauser. OK, no you havent. But youve definitely been paying attention, because with every year the Braves didnt win a second World Series, after beating Cleveland in 1995, the heat on the core of that team grew a little more scorching.The reality is, said John Smoltz, Foxs lead baseball analyst, we should have won in 96. So we should have won back-to-back.But because Jim Leyritz hit the long ball of a lifetime, that team didnt win two World Series in a row. And even though the Braves kept going back to October for another nine consecutive seasons -- and actually averaged 103 wins a year from 1997-99 -- they were always haunted by the years they didnt win. So they felt the tonnage of those losses in every one of those Octobers.There are so many things that I think change the destiny of a ballclub, based on the end result, Smoltz said. And in 1996, when we were up, two games to none, against the Yankees, we were going to win our second consecutive World Series. If we do, theres no way John Schuerholz trades David Justice or Jermaine Dye. Theres no way he trades Marquis Grissom. You dont change a team that won. But because we lost and the Yankees won, they went on to spit out four out of five. And that, to me, was the hardest thing for us to take, was that we were in position to win a championship back-to-back. And who knows what could have been for us.Smoltz still believes that if the Braves had just won that World Series, they would have gone on to be the team of the 90s, not the Yankees. They would have kept that team together. They never would have had to play those future postseasons under the omnipresent cloud of Team That Cant Win the Big One. So who knows how many more times they would have won?That team won 100 games in six different seasons -- and won the World Series in none of those years. But how minuscule for those Braves was the line between dynasty and disaster? Lets reflect on that too.One pitch, one bounce, one call, one playSuppose Mark Wohlers had never hung that fateful slider to Leyritz in 1996? Suppose, for that matter, Dye hadnt gotten tangled up with the right-field umpire, Tim Welke, in a bizarre play in the same game, as the Yankees were blowing a 6-0 lead? Suppose theyd won Game 4 and led that World Series three games to one, instead of being tied 2-2?How different might everything have been -- because of one pitch or one crazy moment that no one has witnessed before or since? We cant answer those questions, of course. But go back and take a look at every postseason in this era. There is always a pitch, a play, an umpires call or a ball that bounces the right (wrong) way -- and alters the fate of teams, players and the fans who care much too deeply about them.Everyone we talked to for this piece had a story like that -- a moment they cant forget, one which would have turned games and postseasons and careers upside-down.Never put a percentage on how much luck is in a baseball game, Manuel said. And human nature plays a role.As the Red Sox were coming back after losing the first three games to the Yankees in 2004, there were so many tiny little twists of fate that made it all possible. And not just Dave Roberts stealing second and making it by 1/16 of an inch. Torre can still see a Tony Clark double that would have given the Yankees the lead in the ninth inning of Game 5 -- if it hadnt bounced into the seats in Fenway as no other ball has hopped before or since.Manuel still shakes his head over that squirrel in St. Louis in 2008. And a wild Bartolo Colon pickoff throw against the Mariners in 2001 that was supposed to be a bluff. And an unlikely game-winning 2010 home run by Juan Uribe -- off a Ryan Madson slider that missed its target by a foot.Giants bench coach Ron Wotus said he is still haunted by the agonizing out call on J.T. Snows slide at the plate -- and by a fly ball Jose Cruz Jr. didnt catch -- in the 2003 loss to the Marlins that ended the Giants only 100-win season in the past two decades.In baseball, more than any other sport, those October oddities youve never seen before are often the reason that so many underdogs win and so many 100-win teams go fishing. But we never seem to account for that.Winning is very fleeting, Wotus said. And Im speaking from experience, from the three World Series we won too. Its the bounce of the ball. Its a bloop hit. Its something strange -- one player having a tremendous night. Its so fleeting that ... everyones goal is to win the World Series, but its always something strange like that, that seems to knock you out of that.October isnt fairWhat it all comes down to, really, is that postseason baseball is a whole different sport. So the qualities that make teams great from April through September arent the qualities that decide who wins in October. And is there any greater example than what weve already witnessed in October 2016?Its a totally different season, Smoltz said. You might as well just play baseball totally different. I get the complexities with some of it. But there are too many off days. And you dont utilize your roster the way you would in 162 games. You would never be able to pitch your closer three innings and come back the next day and even think about using him.Would the Indians be in the World Series if they hadnt been able to use Andrew Miller to make six multi-inning bullpen appearances, totaling 171 pitches, in the same postseason? Would the Dodgers still be playing if Kenley Jansen hadnt shown up on the mound at the start of the seventh inning in Game 5 in Washington? Those answers are no and, well, no.You cant do that in the regular season, Smoltz said. Nor would you. Everybodys claiming now that thats the way it should be, but it cant. You have to approach it differently. ... It would be like the Golden State Warriors abandoning their approach and trying to shoot all 2-pointers in the playoffs. Its just not going to be part of their game plan.But thats just kind of what happens now in baseball. Its a format that you can play totally different than you would in the regular season.Well, that format isnt changing. Not any time soon. And certainly not between now and the start of Game 6 at Wrigley. So no wonder the ingenious architect of these Cubs, Theo Epstein, said that when you build a team, all you can do is construct a roster that you think can get you to October.Yeah, but what happens once you get there?Then, he said, you pray. Cheap Nike Shoes Australia . Despite the cost, effort and an improved steroid test, its possible that very few -- if any -- positives will be detected, Dr. Richard Budgett told The Associated Press in an interview. "We just dont know what the results from Torino will be," Budgett said. Wholesale Shoes Australia . -- Nate Robinson has played for seven teams, so beating one of them is no longer a rare occurrence. http://www.saleshoesaustralia.com/ . The Browns coaching search remains incomplete. Cheap Shoes Australia From China .Y. -- Sabres defenceman Tyler Myers had no intention of changing his hard-hitting style before taking part in a disciplinary hearing for his illegal check to New Jersey forward Dainius Zubrus head. Wholesale Shoes Australia Online . - NASCAR announced a 33-race schedule for the 2014 Nationwide Series with virtually no changes from this years slate. A dominant opening day for Australia at Pallekele ran more or less to the script the tourists were hoping to stick with. Features included an even bowling performance, alert fielding and the foundations of a batting platform set, before rain ended the day ahead of schedule.In rounding Sri Lanka up for a mere 117, they also avoided falling behind in the match as they did against Pakistan in the UAE in 2014. This means Steven Smiths side are in the position they are most comfortable with - driving the game forward from a position of strength, rather than scrapping and fighting to stay in it. From that vantage point, Australias aggression looks dashing and purposeful rather than reckless, and opponents under the cosh tend to stay there.Nevertheless, no day is ever quite perfect, and there was one area in which the Australians will be wanting to tighten up at later stages. This is in the tightness of their opening batsmen, David Warner and Joe Burns, both of whom lost their wickets early on to moments of looseness and/or imprecision. The subsequent partnership between captain Steven Smith and Usman Khawaja represented the most measured batting of the day, and showed what players on both sides should be looking to do on a pitch that has offered just enough help to the bowlers, both pace and spin. The surface made the toss more intriguing than most in this part of the world, and it was here that Australia pulled the first of numerous correct reins.Team selection: It had always seemed likely that Australia would plump for twin spin in this series, but given how rarely such a team has been selected in the recent past - just three times have they used a full-time spin tandem since the last visit to Sri Lanka in 2011 - there may have been temptation to divert from that path. Certainly, Pallekele was always going to be the strip offering most assistance to the faster men, as it momentarily did five years ago for Ryan Harris and Trent Copeland.Sri Lankas players were known to be unhappy about starting here rather than Galles more obviously spinning track, and the ground staff here had clearly tried to dry out their pitch. But the balance provided by Steve OKeefe was useful to Smith, while Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Starc operated in shorter spells. All the while, Mitchell Marshs lively fast-medium remained in reserve, the days lopsided measure best illustrated by the fact that he was not even required to bowl.Intimidation: Before this match, Smith had spoken of the fact that while Australia were playing in conditions they had often found difficult, they were also playing an opponent short of experience and confidence. This meant it was important to get on the front foot early, demonstrating through performance and body language who was in charge. Sri Lankas players had been spared the supposedly demoralising sight of the Test Championship mace being presented to Smith in public on match eve, but they could not so readily avoid the Australians in the middle.By way of verbals, Kusal Mendis was nearly goaded into reviewing his lbw, which replays showed to be smashing into middle stump. By way of tactics, the focus upon Angelo Mathews was backed up by a none-too-subtle field setting, leg gully and short leg posted when Mitchell Starc ran in at him. It works too: Mathews very nearly offered an edge first ball, then was tentative enough to prod OKeefe to slip soon after. At no stage were Sri Lanka made to feel like they belonged in this company.Hazlewood: Perhaps it is his SCG upbringing, perhaps his commendable straightness when in good rhythm, or perhaps his height, but Hazlewood was, by a distance, the most impressive Australian bowler on the day.dddddddddddd Where Starc was fast but slightly off-peak, Hazlewood worked away steadily, finding his range and then a probing line and length to challenge all batsmen.Initially, it was seam movement on a slightly tacky surface that worked in his favour, seaming one back to pin Mendis, then shading one away from Kaushal Silva. There was a little more swing for Hazlewood in his second spell, and he saved his best delivery for Dinesh Chandimal, a gateway server that had Sri Lankas most accomplished batsman playing with a slightly closed bat face to snick behind to Peter Nevill. A couple of tail-end wickets to complete a five-for would have been well-deserved, but competition among an eager bowling attack meant Hazlewood had to be content with three.Use of the spinners: Nathan Lyon and OKeefe had both trained with near-new balls in the lead-up to the Test, and Smith elected to hand the ball to the latter as early as the ninth over. Immediately, he found the sort of beguiling variation that has helped him build, by a distance, the most handsome Sheffield Shield record of any contemporary Australian spinner.Some balls skidded on, while others gripped. OKeefes slight build and somewhat round-arm action gives him a similar trajectory to Rangana Herath, and he used this well to defeat a tentative Mathews with a hint of extra turn and bounce. Lyon was held back until the last over before lunch, but he too would use the conditions nicely. Three wickets in seven balls spanning the first and third overs after the interval effectively ended Sri Lankas innings, with bounce, turn and natural variation all coming into play. Lyon made his debut in this country five years ago; it is fitting he now sits two wickets away from 200 on visit No. 2.Out-of-kilter openers: For a brief moment, Australias march towards control of the Test was held up by the rapid exits of Warner and Burns, in circumstances that both batsmen will not be best pleased about. Bowled by full deliveries, neither paid due care and attention, and the opportunity to bat under relatively little scoreboard pressure was wasted.Warner, of course, is very much short of match practice. Having suffered a broken finger to the same hand that already nurses a problematic, previously injured thumb, he delayed his return to the batting crease as long as possible, eschewing the earlier tour match. He is also reluctant to bat in the fast bowlers No. 1 net these days, and it is just possible that Nuwan Pradeep hurried onto him with a near yorker touching 141kph. Warners feet were slow to move, and the drag onto the stumps maintained a drought of overseas centuries, dating back to March, 2014.Burns has made no secret that these conditions will stretch him, but he remonstrated visibly with himself after miscalculating Heraths skid with the new ball. Stretching forward to defend, he played for fractional turn, duly leaving a gap through which the ball hurried through. That dismissal mirrored many suffered by the Australians in the UAE against Pakistan, when Yasir Shah and Zulfiqur Babar created similar doubts, to which the only remedy is supremely close attention to the ball through the air and off the pitch. Khawaja and Smith both had similar moments of inexact judgement, but escaped to bat on tomorrow. Many more runs beckon. ' ' '