I find this article somewhat puzzling. It’s called “Sox have rhetoric, but what’s behind the words?” but the article is filled with, you guessed it, rhetoric (and is referring to the White Sox). And what is “behind” rhetoric? Nothing. That’s the definition.
Apparently the White Sox’s problem last year was a lack of “intensity” :
The Sox had the goods last season, but there was the lingering feeling—lingering in the way that a 72-90 record lingers—that they were short on intensity.
The Sox had the goods? By whose measure? I think that 72-90 record is a bit more indicative of talent. But that’s just me.