The article suffers from a fallacy, and it goes like this:

In hockey, it matters not whether you lose by 1 goal or by 10, because the next game always starts 0-0.

In life, the goals from the last game sometimes follow you into the next. So what is true in hockey is not always true in life.

To extract more from this hockey analogy, consider the coach being fired an irrevocable, existential risk analogous to irrevocable shame, loss of status, or (slightly more tolerable), death.

A coach can survive a number of 2-1 losses, and not many 5-0 losses. Being fired is analogous to death.

Loss aversion is rationale for this coach, as it is in life.