Reviving Hockey Nicknames
Hockey lacks the flair it once had when it comes to player nicknames, a reality acknowledged by both fans and analysts alike. Long gone are the days when monikers were crafted with creativity and style; nowadays, many names seem to simply add a suffix like -y or -er to a player’s core name. This shift in hockey culture raises an important question: Is it possible to rejuvenate the tradition of clever hockey nicknames?
Nickname Court Experiment
There are two suggested avenues for revitalization. One option is to allow the eccentric contributors at Hockey Reference to take the reins, as they have a penchant for classifying any quirky term as a nickname. The second suggestion, which we will explore in this piece, is to hand the mic to you, the audience. We’re embarking on an experiment called Nickname Court, where your submitted nicknames will face scrutiny and potential endorsement.
In an appeal for submissions, a surge of ideas poured in. While the quality of these suggestions varies, the goal remains simple: whether they are existing or newly minted, we will evaluate their viability. Joining me in this judicial venture are fellow writers Peter Baugh and Scott Powers, and together we’ll decide if your nicknames earn a stamp of approval.
Evaluating Nickname Submissions
To kick off this session, we’ll examine a couple of promising and not-so-promising entries, starting with an intriguing option connected to the recent 2025 NHL Draft. The Anaheim Ducks selected a player at the 10th spot and cleverly whisked him off to Disneyland immediately after. One proposed nickname for this new Duck is “Lightning,” referencing the Disney character Lightning McQueen. Sean, one of our judges, was quick to endorse this name, giving it a resounding thumbs-up for its playful crossover potential. Scott agrees, noting that while it must gain traction in the dressing room, it shows promise. Peter concurs, especially since the player chose No. 95—matching the famous car’s number. Overall, this nickname sails through with unanimous approval.
As we move to the overall first pick of the draft, who controversially revealed his own nickname in a podcast? Sean called for its immediate rejection, arguing that it’s crucial to halt it in its tracks before it spreads. Scott echoed this sentiment, agreeing that it’s a poor choice for public adoption. Peter also expressed his discontent, advocating for a return to a more conventional nickname. The collective verdict is a firm “NO.”
One notable nomination submitted by Rangers fans, affectionately referring to a star defenseman as “Fox,” raises eyebrows. Sean appreciates its cleverness due to its classic naming format, approving it with a yes. Scott points out that although it might not have the iconic status of older nicknames, it does embody thoughtfulness, pushing it to a YES as well. However, Peter isn’t impressed and gives it a NO, leading to a split decision in favor of the nickname.
Among popular entries, a nickname tied to playoff performances—“Swaggy V” for a Panthers player—also garners a mix of responses. Sean is hesitant about its rhyming quality, but Scott suggests a variation to enhance it. Peter emphasizes the player’s clutch ability in overtime, ultimately leading to a split vote that approves it.
A more whimsical entry is proposed—the ridiculous nickname “Fettuccini,” which was characterized as an odd choice but one laden with humor. Sean finds it delightful and humorous enough to vote YES, while Scott remains skeptical, wanting more context. Peter finds the alliterative charm irresistible, leading to a YES verdict overall.
Another nickname, inspired by a Red Wings new recruit, “Red Delicious,” bridges a connection between the player’s name and his red hair. All three judges found joy in this play on words, resulting in a unanimous YES.
Reflecting on Iconic Nicknames
Lastly, we reflect on the iconic nickname “Sid the Kid,” originally attributed to Sidney Crosby at the start of his career. With Crosby soon approaching his 38th birthday, the argument presented is whether he should still carry the same nickname. Sean notes that it lacks substance, while Scott deems it a permanent part of the player’s identity. Peter stresses the historical significance of such names, defending their place in sport. Ultimately, the judges agree that this nickname will not be challenged, and it remains as established.
This inaugural session of Nickname Court showcased a variety of creative and less-than-creative nicknames brought forth by fans and hockey aficionados. By voting on these suggestions, we’ve aimed to inspire a revival of fun within the hockey nickname tradition. What’s next? Potentially more submissions and further creative exploration in future courts.
