Effort v. Intensity: A Case Study Between the Washington Nationals and Boston Red Sox
Something struck me last night during the game. Not a bat or a ball, but a thought. And it resonated back to something Mike Rizzo kept saying over and over again on draft day, and something that Manny Acta has implied -- but has never outright said -- during the myriad press conferences, loss after agonizing loss.
Between getting perturbed at all the fans that usually wear Nats gear that were all decked out in their Red Sox finest last night, I watched the Nats and the Sox, not so much during play, because there the difference was obvious.
Boston plays with a "crispness", always attacking the ball, whether they are at bat or in the field or running the bases. The Nats are very reactionary, letting the play come to them. They have the game dictated to them instead of the other way around.
But beside the action on the field, there was the way both teams conducted their business; the difference between the two was remarkable. And it was quite noticeable in something as simple as tossing the ball around the infield after an out was made.
The Nats, as customary in baseball, toss the ball to the shortstop, who throws to the second baseman and then to the third baseman, who returns the ball to the pitcher. This practice is to allow the fielders that throw the most to keep their arms limber between plays.
But the way the Nats go about it, it's a lob, or a shuffle, or flip. There's no "crispness" to the exercise. Cristian Guzman lobbed the ball to Anderson Hernandez, who would shot-put the ball over to Ryan Zimmerman. And Zim would flip the ball back to the pitcher. They aren't practicing anything but a routine. It was mechanical and useless.
The Red Sox, on the other hand, were determined in the throws they made between outs. Nick Green would fire the ball to Dustin Pedroia. Pedroia would send a rocket to Mike Lowell. And Lowell purposefully delivered the ball to the pitcher. They were practicing throwing the ball as they would have been making a play.
Now, you might wonder what all this has to do with the implosion of the bullpen in the eighth inning. Nothing really. But that's simply a lack of talent. What I'm talking about is the difference between effort and intensity.
Back to Rizzo and Acta. Acta talks all the time about how his team works hard and expends energy and puts effort into their jobs. But there is a BIG difference between making effort and being intense. And for the most part, the Nats lack an intensity that the Red Sox obviously carry.
Sure, there are a couple of players that seem to have that intensity. Willie Harris prepared to field his position in center field during a intentional walk while others stood there, legs crossed, waiting for the at bat to finish.
But for the rest, where does blame lie? Was the intensity there at the beginning of the season before the losses started piling up? Do you fault the manager, who himself is very intense privately but remains stoic in public?
Should we fault the organization, for previously relying on "tools" more than "make-up"? How about the players themselves? Shouldn't being a big league player be about more than going through the motions?
And that's where it ties into Rizzo. The "acting" GM went out of his way during the draft to acquire players that he described as "character" guys, or guys with good "make-up". The whole point of the draft to him was to pick players that, all things being equal (and in some cases not quite equal), were of high character, at least in his judgment.
This implies that, in his opinion, the team does not have enough of those types of players.
So watch tonight the difference between the Nats and the Sox: not during play, but between play. Watch them warm-up between innings. Watch them in the on-deck circle. Watch batting practice, not for the tape-measure shots, but the intensity in the cage.
The difference is startling.
1 recs |
14 comments
|
Comments
Thanks for the eyewitness analysis, Dave.
It is those little things, like around-the-horn, that point to a more fundamental problem. How can the coaches not view that as important. A few highlights I’ve observed showed the ball playing the player, mostly Dunn letting the ball roll to him and Kearns jogging after a line shot. Even if it doesn’t affect the play, it does show a lack of intensity and something good teams do not do.
"The legacy that was spawned oh-so-many years ago in DC is somewhere in that line-up card each night."
by cat daddy3000 on Jun 24, 2009 5:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fake cheering
Watching the game last night on TV from Boston was the first time I saw the new park. The park looks great. I hope your team improves and you develop a loyal, local following. One thing that struck me was the repeated, contrived junk coming from the PA system. Some of it wasn’t the usual, obnoxious chant that is supposed to end with the crowd yelling, “charge,” but really grating, annoying junk that did nothing to motivate the crowd. It’s really juvenile, and I would imagine very aggravating to anyone who attends games on a regular basis. It’s one of my personal pet peeves about watching away games on TV. I’d like to know what Nationals fans think? Has anyone tried to get them to stop the nonsense? If they ever tried that shit at Fenway there would be a riot. Please e-mail me at pjmaguire at aol.
by SoxFan1964 on Jun 24, 2009 5:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
boy are you ever right
It is extremely annoying to listen to either at the park or on tv.
by gengreen17 on Jun 24, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The stadium announcer is not that bad, but he's not announcing a monster truck race...
It’s Dukes and Guzman. Not DOOOOOKS and GOOOOOOOOOZ-MAN. When the crowd of nats fans shows up someday, they’ll know to make the OOOO noise when those guys come up. Now, it’s still just Booo and YOOOK for a couple more days.
by ROSCOEtheNATSfan on Jun 24, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tell you, sometimes it sounds like he's saying, "pitcher" when says, "catcher" and vice-versa...
…it’s like he’s trying to screw up my scoring.
"NatsTown™, Village of the Damned" --MissB
by Doghouse on Jun 24, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: fake cheering
I don’t know what it’s been like at a full stadium, but during the normal home games the synthetic crowd noise is just pathetic. It’s sad that there isn’t enough noise from the fans’ excitement, but do we really need the PA system saying “come on! just cheer! everybody’s doin it!”
by pacabr on Jun 24, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good report
thanks
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James
by PhDBrian on Jun 24, 2009 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Clarification
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about the sounds coming over the Public Announcement system that try to coerce the fans into cheering. The faux pipe hitting metal, …etc. I think it’s humiliating that management thinks they need to need to send contrived messages that force people to cheer. Situational music is great, but the fabricated attempts to generate enthusiasm are such an insult to educated fans who know when to cheer. Am I alone?
by SoxFan1964 on Jun 24, 2009 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You probably do need fabricated attempts at enthusiasm...
when your team is 20-49. There are probably some Nats fans that haven’t seen this team win a game yet… one day it will be
Little Nats child: " mommy!! Why are the Nats players doing that Are they in pain? They seem to be yelling and jumping around??"
Mommy: “No child…they just won a game. They are elated…happy.”
Little Nats child: “Won? Mommy… what’s Won mean?”
"Baseball is like church. Many attend; few understand."
by Mezza on Jun 24, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man, that's just......... just....
NatsTown: confusing and stunting children since 2nd half 2005….
"The legacy that was spawned oh-so-many years ago in DC is somewhere in that line-up card each night."
by cat daddy3000 on Jun 25, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting analysis, I’ll be watching more closely tonight.
by Graven Image on Jun 25, 2009 5:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Local opinion?
Congratulations on the win tonight. I suffered through all of the noise from the stadium PA again tonight. I’m not talking about the announcer’s antics, or the queer shit between innings. I’m talking about all of the sounds like the banging on the pipe, and all of the other non-verbal stuff that no one responds to. Can someone tell me why rational human beings think this stuff is ok? It’s along the lines of the parks that play the organ music “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands,” then a sprinkling of people clap. Why don’t people think the tacky shit they do at the stadium is offensive????
by SoxFan1964 on Jun 26, 2009 12:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It probably worked in Atlanta 20 years ago.
by ROSCOEtheNATSfan on Jun 26, 2009 7:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DC hasn't had a local baseball tradition for 30+ years, right?
Cities that have had teams for a long time have a certain rhythm to the games and to the way fans react, things they chant, etc. DC is trying to invent it more-or-less from whole cloth—hampered by the team’s poor record and mass influx of visiting team fans and/or fans who are Nats fans “except for” the Mets/Fillies/Sox/etc… It takes time and/or a taste of success to start building a “team” in the stands in addition to a team on the field. The PA stuff is a harmless attempt to jump-start that. Honestly, I’ve always been far more annoyed by that idiot clown Clint—I’m glad the stadium people have finally clued in enough to start splitting his between-inning-promo facetime with the far-less-annoying Yolanda.
"NatsTown™, Village of the Damned" --MissB
by Doghouse on Jun 26, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















