Cornell vs. Niagara Postgame

[RichH]

He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash.  As in...what does that even mean?  Is he yawning?  Is he staring into the crowd during play?  Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs?  The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid.  This isn't.  Players carry themselves differently on the ice.  Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't.  I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look."  You're going to  have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports.  I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

[HockeyMan]

He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash.  As in...what does that even mean?  Is he yawning?  Is he staring into the crowd during play?  Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs?  The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid.  This isn't.  Players carry themselves differently on the ice.  Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't.  I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look."  You're going to  have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports.  I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

I think we had this debate last year...For me, there's just a lack of urgency at times, especially in his own half of the ice.  If the other team is threatening an odd-man rush, he can be maddeningly casual about getting back.  Ditto if he's at point and needs to get a shot or a pass off quickly to prevent a possible block and counterattack.  Partly this is a matter of appearances deceiving, I grant you--he's a big guy who takes big strides--but not wholly.  

On the flip side, I love the offensive flair he brings to a team that needs it.  He had a wonderful rush last night that could have led to a great chance.  And he's key on the PP.

[Josh '99]

He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash.  As in...what does that even mean?  Is he yawning?  Is he staring into the crowd during play?  Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs?  The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid.  This isn't.  Players carry themselves differently on the ice.  Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't.  I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look."  You're going to  have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports.  I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

Agreed.  Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

[HockeyMan]

Agreed.  Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh?  All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers.  Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

[Scersk '97]

On the flip side, I love the offensive flair he brings to a team that needs it.  He had a wonderful rush last night that could have led to a great chance.  And he's key on the PP.

For me, it's his lack of "offensive flair" on the power play that I find most frustrating.  Like many of our defensemen, he seems fascinated with blasting the puck through people from the point.  Some defensemen (Cook comes to mind) seem to have the vision necessary to know when to blast and when not to blast, but B. Nash seems constantly to hit defenders and create shorthanded opportunities.

I very much hope that Whitney can become consistent (or regain his consistency) so that he can take over this "key" role on the power play.  He at least seems to understand the efficacy of taking a stride and throwing in a wrister on net instead of brainlessly blasting away.

[Josh '99]

Agreed.  Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh?  All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers.  Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

Even if maybe some players work a little harder than others, I believe my statement still stands.  There is no way Nash gets to the point where he is if he's "disinterested".

[CUontheslopes]

Agreed.  Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh?  All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers.  Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

Even if maybe some players work a little harder than others, I believe my statement still stands.  There is no way Nash gets to the point where he is if he's "disinterested".

Honestly - he's not playing on the Red Army Olympic Team or hell, even the NHL. He's playing college hockey. There are a lot of college hockey players, equally talented junior players, etc. Anyone who's seen him play would have to be frustrated with his lapses. A detached observer would tell you hee's disinterested, lackadaisical, or just stupid (hockeywise at least). How many times can you shoot the puck from the point into a forward's legs and almost give up a breakaway in a key spot? Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart. He still has time to prove me wrong, but he makes far too many freshman mistakes. If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

[RichH]

Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart.

Oh, OK.  Heart.  Well, maybe he should make a visit to The Wizard then, and get some of that and everything will be A-OK and he'll stop making any mistakes.  And what is it visually that has led you to make that diagnosis about his blood-pumping organ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the topic of "Intangibles" is usually pretty ridiculous to me when it comes to athletes.  Say he makes more physical errors than he should.  Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

Well, of course.  I think we can say that about several key players on this year's squadron.  He's certainly one of them, and when he's on his game, he's one of the best d-men in the league.

[mnagowski]

Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

Would 'focus' or 'intensity' be better words?

[CUontheslopes]

Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart.

Oh, OK.  Heart.  Well, maybe he should make a visit to The Wizard then, and get some of that and everything will be A-OK and he'll stop making any mistakes.  And what is it visually that has led you to make that diagnosis about his blood-pumping organ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the topic of "Intangibles" is usually pretty ridiculous to me when it comes to athletes.  Say he makes more physical errors than he should.  Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

Well, of course.  I think we can say that about several key players on this year's squadron.  He's certainly one of them, and when he's on his game, he's one of the best d-men in the league.

Needlessly sarcastic response aside, we can keep giving you synyonyms like "focus" or "intensity" (both of which are apt). I'm certainly not the only one that holds this opinion, nor am I using a phraseology hwolly alien to sports commentary. There's nothing "intangible" about his play. At times, and I emphasise AT TIMES, he makes downright unforgiveably awful plays, especially for a senior. I've given you quite a few examples of how I think he makes stupid plays at times. Saying he looks disinterested or doesn't play with a lot of heart are both fair comments. You can tell when someone's playing with heart or working his ass off. See Greening,Topher, Mugford, Vesce, etc. Nash continues to make mistakes he shouldn't make, doesn't show a lot of hustle to 50/50 pucks or to cover up his own blunders. Would "he's not scrappy and doesn't show a lot of hustle" be better descriptions for you? He's often slow to react and looks out of place or lost. Better descriptions? He only looks comfortable when he's carrying the puck. And there I give him a lot of credit - he's excellent on the breakout and integral to that portion of our play. However, he's neither shut you down defensemen in the model of say...Gleed nor the sharpshooter from the point that Cook was.  I hope that clarifies my critique. As I said, I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but your incessant whining about it is irritating.

As an aside, I'd dare you to find anyone on any successful team at any level who calls "heart" or "intensity" crap. Heart and intensity win championships. It's that Rocky mentality that has often seemed to befuddle us when we play ostensibly less-talented, but speedier teams who seem to fly around and skate their hearts out. Personally, I'd take a team of scrappy guys who play with a lot of heart any day...Herb Brooks did. Seemed to work out well for everybody.

[RichH]

Needlessly sarcastic response aside, we can keep giving you synyonyms like "focus" or "intensity" (both of which are apt). I'm certainly not the only one that holds this opinion, nor am I using a phraseology hwolly alien to sports commentary. There's nothing "intangible" about his play. At times, and I emphasise AT TIMES, he makes downright unforgiveably awful plays, especially for a senior. I've given you quite a few examples of how I think he makes stupid plays at times. Saying he looks disinterested or doesn't play with a lot of heart are both fair comments. You can tell when someone's playing with heart or working his ass off. See Greening,Topher, Mugford, Vesce, etc. Nash continues to make mistakes he shouldn't make, doesn't show a lot of hustle to 50/50 pucks or to cover up his own blunders. Would "he's not scrappy and doesn't show a lot of hustle" be better descriptions for you? He's often slow to react and looks out of place or lost. Better descriptions? He only looks comfortable when he's carrying the puck. And there I give him a lot of credit - he's excellent on the breakout and integral to that portion of our play. However, he's neither shut you down defensemen in the model of say...Gleed nor the sharpshooter from the point that Cook was.  I hope that clarifies my critique. As I said, I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but your incessant whining about it is irritating.

As an aside, I'd dare you to find anyone on any successful team at any level who calls "heart" or "intensity" crap. Heart and intensity win championships. It's that Rocky mentality that has often seemed to befuddle us when we play ostensibly less-talented, but speedier teams who seem to fly around and skate their hearts out. Personally, I'd take a team of scrappy guys who play with a lot of heart any day...Herb Brooks did. Seemed to work out well for everybody.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Calm down.  First of all, I never was attacking you personally, and I don't know why you're getting so worked up over this.  Yes, my sarcasm was unnecessary (which I apologized for), but everything on this forum is unnecessary.  I only used that method to make a funny and amuse myself and possibly others.  Incessant whining?  I've made two short posts.  I'm not participating in this debate because I'm upset you criticized a player I like.  I completely approve of and support you being critical of one of our own players.  There's nothing wrong with that.  As long as you're critical of real things.  MOST of the things you (and others) have said are actual empirical observations.  Fine.  I've noticed myself that B. Nash has streaks lasting for weeks where the quality of his play isn't anywhere near of what he's capable.  I've seen BIG mistakes he's made, and I don't hesitate to call him out for it.  He absolutely makes stupid plays.  But what I'm making fun of here, is when people cross over to talk about "intangibles."  I don't care what you call it: Heart, Intensity, Focus, Fortitude, Determination, Disinterest, whatever.  These are all intangibles.  They can't be measured or proven.  It's my opinion that they are made-up quantities based on your own emotional opinions of a guy.

Some of you may have heard of a defunct sports blog titled "Fire Joe Morgan" (FJM) which I thought was wonderfully hilarious.  Its point was to basically make fun of dumb sports articles (with an obvious slant towards baseball).  Why do I bring this up?  Because you used a certain hot-button word for that blog.  Recently, FJM had a "reunion" on Deadspin.  And that gave us this article, titled "The Utterance Of This Word Should Be Punishable By Death," I ask you to read.  Or don't, because I'm going to extract a relevant brief quote from it.

http://deadspin.com/5360379/the-utterance-of-this-word-should-be-punishable-by-death

As we all know by now, "scrappy" is a meaningless, arbitrary, clichéd adjective that sportswriters use to describe baseball players they like. Often, these players are small, white, terrible at baseball, David Eckstein, or all four of the above.

...

"They may or may not play every day, but every time they step on the field you're ensured that they're giving it their all."

You know what you're saying, random dude who wrote a very minor Internet-only baseball article that never thought he would get trashed and over-analyzed for little to no reason? You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him.

And that was sort of my point when I was mentioned John Olerud in passing.  Pop open the batting helmet lid of C3P-Olerud, and you can probably see the circuitry of that android.  That guy has negative perceived "intensity," but that doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player.

I was tempted to go line-by-line of your post saying "yes" and "no" to each point since you flip-flop in between real-world and intangible-world so effortlessly.  "He's slow to react" is valid to me.  I understand that.  "He doesn't play with heart" is meaningless to me.  However, your entire 2nd paragraph made me laugh.  Heart and intensity don't win championships.  BEING CONSISTENTLY GOOD AT HOCKEY wins championships (and getting a couple bounces in your favor can certainly help).

I actually want to thank you for getting me to do a search for "FJM Eckstein" and learning of this FJM Reunion on Deadspin.  This is gold to me.

[Trotsky]

Since you're being thorough, it's also fair to point out that "grit" and "passion" are so archetypical of the timeless Moneyball (and before that, Ball Four) "old fart jock vs unathletic statsgeek" pissing contest that at least one sabremetric-inspired blog, Amazin' Avenue, coined the term "grission" to make the same point.

But.  Inexact does not equal non-existent.  If we strip away the emotion-laden terminology of "intensity" and "focus" we're still left with personal experiences -- call them "I am trying hard" (or not) and "I give a damn" (or not).  Like pornography, while undefinable we know them when we see them.  Now, it may be a fair criticism whether external observers can ever evaluate those internal states, since what we take as indicators are highly subjective and often ephemeral (classic example: an "effortless" skating style).

[scoop85]

Nice game story in today's Daily Sun:  http://www.cornellsun.com/section/sports/content/2009/11/01/greening%E2%80%99s-two-goals-not-enough-so-devin-lends-hand-overtime

It's probably the most accurate and well-written game summary I've seen in the Sun for some time.  Kudos to Mitchell Drucker.

[sah67]

For those who weren't aware, from INCH's Power Rankings today:

Not too shabby when your parents weekend game draws Ron Francis. The Hall of Famer and fourth-leading scorer in NHL history has a daughter at Cornell, and the Hurricanes' Associate Head Coach caught Friday night's win over Niagara.

Perhaps he was also taking a look at Krueger, who's a Carolina draft pick IIRC.

[HockeyMan]

But what I'm making fun of here, is when people cross over to talk about "intangibles."  I don't care what you call it: Heart, Intensity, Focus, Fortitude, Determination, Disinterest, whatever.  These are all intangibles.  They can't be measured or proven.  It's my opinion that they are made-up quantities based on your own emotional opinions of a guy.

This is ridiculous.  "Your own emotional opinions"? What? So when I see that, say, Manny Ramirez is disinterested in a given fly ball, and when I hear his coaches complain about his lack of effort, it's just my own emotional opinions at work?

And that was sort of my point when I was mentioned John Olerud in passing.  Pop open the batting helmet lid of C3P-Olerud, and you can probably see the circuitry of that android.  That guy has negative perceived "intensity," but that doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player.

A straw man.  No one is saying that Olerud--or, more to the point, a player who makes the Red roster--is anything but a very skilled athlete.  Obviously, it takes genuine talent and years of hard training to get to this level.  But your insistence that the players are therefore all the same in this regard, that we should never differentiate among them re their intensity/effort/heart/desire/focus, is just plain silly.