The mythical NHL lockerroom

[SnowblindNYR]

It seems whenever a coach makes a bad and illogical decision, the default response from apologists is that was done so that the coach wouldn't lose the lockerroom. Most common version of this: Popular but bad player can't get scratched it will lose the lockerroom! Since the decision doesn't make sense on merits of actually playing hockey and fans know nothing about anything happening behind the scenes, this is the default catch all response. He did it to not lose the lockerroom! What losing the lockerroom is ambiguously defined. Are players not going to play hard because they will revolt against the coach? Will they all lose focus at the same time? Are they all going to lose confidence at the same time? Nobody knows what it even means. But hockey culture reveres intangible nonsense and focuses more on "toughness" and "leadership" and poorly defined nonsense most of the time than actual hockey stuff in order to have the sport reach mystical levels. BTW, toughness is a thing and leadership is a thing but they're also ambiguous enough that you can use them to make any poorly defined argument that you want without having to actually verify anything. What I find most ludicrous is that part of this mythical NHL player, they are the physically toughest player in the NHL, but these millionaires who have accomplished more than 99.99% of the world are also the weakest mentally apparently as every decision made has the lockerroom teetering on collapse.

There are legit lockerroom toxicity issues such as with Babcock that we trivialize by saying "popular player got scratched will lose the lockerroom".

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

The true locker room myth is that coaches make adjustments to win games during intermission.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

It seems whenever a coach makes a bad and illogical decision, the default response from apologists is that was done so that the coach wouldn't lose the lockerroom. Most common version of this: Popular but bad player can't get scratched it will lose the lockerroom! Since the decision doesn't make sense on merits of actually playing hockey and fans know nothing about anything happening behind the scenes, this is the default catch all response. He did it to not lose the lockerroom! What losing the lockerroom is ambiguously defined. Are players not going to play hard because they will revolt against the coach? Will they all lose focus at the same time? Are they all going to lose confidence at the same time? Nobody knows what it even means. But hockey culture reveres intangible nonsense and focuses more on "toughness" and "leadership" and poorly defined nonsense most of the time than actual hockey stuff in order to have the sport reach mystical levels. BTW, toughness is a thing and leadership is a thing but they're also ambiguous enough that you can use them to make any poorly defined argument that you want without having to actually verify anything. What I find most ludicrous is that part of this mythical NHL player, they are the physically toughest player in the NHL, but these millionaires who have accomplished more than 99.99% of the world are also the weakest mentally apparently as every decision made has the lockerroom teetering on collapse.

There are legit lockerroom toxicity issues such as with Babcock that we trivialize by saying "popular player got scratched will lose the lockerroom".

Thoughts?

Not sure how scratching a popular player and Babcock have much to do with each other. So, I guess I'm saying whatever argument you're constructing is as ambiguous as those you are ventriloquizing.

 

[benfranklin]

That is one massive paragraph. Also locker room is two words.

The "locker room" as you refer to it is a real thing. Once a losing culture is engrained, its hard to reset. Look at Buffalo. That team should pay Bergeron to come in and consult at this point. No coach has been able to put a dent in it.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

OP is a Ranger fan, this is probably referncing Zibanejad and the merits of scratching him which has been floated around on Ranger board. He's been pretty awful, enough to warrant a healthy scratch, I'm not so sure but if you were to scratch a veteran player like that, you'd probably go about it a certain way. And not do it like how sometimes a young player who doesn't backcheck or put in proper effort gets scratched.

With him it's not really an effort thing. And he might be hurt, if he was scratched they'd probably call it an injury and give him a game or two off to get his bearings. Even if he was hypotheticaly scratched to send a message, idk how many ppl belive that could lose a locker room.

That said, a bad coach can absolutely lose a locker room and destroy a team by other decisions and behaviour. The Jacksonville Jaguars and Urban Meyer is the biggest recent example of this, just an abomination of a coach that the org is still trying to recover from and might have set back the franchise QB's progression greatly.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

OP is a Ranger fan, this is probably referncing Zibanejad and the merits of scratching him which has been floated around on Ranger board. He's been pretty awful, enough to warrant a healthy scratch, I'm not so sure but if you were to scratch a veteran player like that, you'd probably go about it a certain way. And not do it like how sometimes a young player who doesn't backcheck or put in proper effort gets scratched.

With him it's not really an effort thing. And he might be hurt, if he was scratched they'd probably call it an injury and give him a game or two off to get his bearings. Even if he was hypotheticaly scratched to send a message, idk how many ppl belive that could lose a locker room.

That said, a bad coach can absolutely lose a locker room and destroy a team by other decisions and behaviour. The Jacksonville Jaguars and Urban Meyer is the biggest recent example of this, just an abomination of a coach that the org is still trying to recover from and might have set back the franchise QB's progression greatly.

Thanks for the translation. Makes more sense. Just out of curiosity, who slots in if Z gets scratched.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Thanks for the translation. Makes more sense. Just out of curiosity, who slots in if Z gets scratched.

Sheeit, i own even know. Rangers are very thin @ center, in terms of both star power and players who can fill-in and play the position down in the lineup if needed.

I dont' think scratching him is realistic and he's been blessed with good luck in health department, so Rangers have never really been without him with this team.

I'd think Johnny Brodzinski would have to slide into lineup and play center or Adam Edstrom. Would look pretty ugly on paper (Trochek, Chytil, Brodzinski/Edstrom, Carrick)

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Not sure how scratching a popular player and Babcock have much to do with each other. So, I guess I'm saying whatever argument you're constructing is as ambiguous as those you are ventriloquizing.

Scratching a popular player is apparently going to upset the lockerroom and I gave Babcock as an example of real lockerroom toxicity to show that the former doesn't meet the criteria for upsetting the lockerroom and trivializes the latter. Is my argument ambiguous or are you having reading comprehension issues? Mind you I could have done better with paragraphs.

That is one massive paragraph. Also locker room is two words.

The "locker room" as you refer to it is a real thing. Once a losing culture is engrained, its hard to reset. Look at Buffalo. That team should pay Bergeron to come in and consult at this point. No coach has been able to put a dent in it.

My bad on locker room and paragraphs. But my point is some things are real and some are complete garbage. Shitty team having a negative culture is real, benching a bad player that people like having a negative cultural effect bullshit.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

OP is a Ranger fan, this is probably referncing Zibanejad and the merits of scratching him which has been floated around on Ranger board. He's been pretty awful, enough to warrant a healthy scratch, I'm not so sure but if you were to scratch a veteran player like that, you'd probably go about it a certain way. And not do it like how sometimes a young player who doesn't backcheck or put in proper effort gets scratched.

With him it's not really an effort thing. And he might be hurt, if he was scratched they'd probably call it an injury and give him a game or two off to get his bearings. Even if he was hypotheticaly scratched to send a message, idk how many ppl belive that could lose a locker room.

That said, a bad coach can absolutely lose a locker room and destroy a team by other decisions and behaviour. The Jacksonville Jaguars and Urban Meyer is the biggest recent example of this, just an abomination of a coach that the org is still trying to recover from and might have set back the franchise QB's progression greatly.

We've heard that scratching Mika or not playing Lindgren could lose the locker room quite a bit on our board.

 

[Jumptheshark]

The locker room is a legit thing. However, one move does not cause a coach to lose the room, Also, winning helps cover a lot of problems that are evident when teams are on a losing streak