You have no idea what the impact is. Only the people in that room do. Leadership could be the difference between a young guy wilting in Montreal and leaving to become a good player elsewhere. Using winning as some measurable is ridiculous for leadership. Leadership shows up the most in the tough times.
Edit: I agree with the premise of the second paragraph but I think it was more than a tiny effect. If Price comes out in that interview after game 4 and says something other than "I believe in these guys ability to score" do you think they have any chance to come back in that series. They believed in Price but Price reciprocated that belief, whether it was true or not and the rest is history.
I’ve been following the NHL obsessively for over 25 years and if you put a gun to my head I wouldn’t be able to define
intangibles.
“Leadership shows up in the most tough times”
I don’t think you have a good definition either.
I don’t think it doesn’t exist but whatever it is, it’s impact is TINY. How many 5+ game losing streaks did the Habs suffer with Gallagher, Weber, and/or Price in the lineup? Far too many. Were they bad leaders? Either yes or no and their leadership impact is next to irrelevant to results and performances.
I’m simply tired of hearing about leadership and intangibles when in reality people just want to say they like the vibes a player gives off. So just say that! Weber had good vibes, strong vibes, the type you naturally want to associate with. He’s a born leader type. They’re pleasant to be around, every lockerroom should have them. Anderson might have a similar vibe, or might not, but it’s really nothing worth talking about every god damn time his name is brought up.
