Home town advantage 'scientifically' proven

I wouldn't argue the nuances of a sport I don't know about but the issue at hand is hardly unique to ice hockey. You're talking about the trade-off between aggressive and discipline, which exists in practically every contact sport in existence. I don't care what ice hockey calls it, whether it is a 'power forward', 'enforcer' or 'hard man', it is a role that exists everywhere. And in every sport I've followed it is a role that is only held by a few players in any team and it is still a delicate balance to manage.

I don't believe that other things being equal, a player who takes more penalties is more valuable. It certainly isn't true in rugby league and I seriously doubt it is either in the NHL, much less a 'maxim of the sport'.

I don't think that is true and I think you're looking at the issue in the wrong direction. A coach is interested about results first and discipline second. If a coach feels that his team isn't performing or is lacking aggression (and he thinks a more aggressive approach will be more successful) then he'd encourage them to push the envelope. But if a team is disciplined and successful then the coach would be patting himself on the back.

 

You misunderstand me partially. I understand the different between a power forward and an enforcer in ice hockey, mostly knowing about the latter through tragic cases like Derek Boogaard and Rick Rypien. My point is that the role that ice hockey calls a "power forward" exists by other names such as "enforcer" in other sports.

From what I can tell, a power forward in ice hockey is not particularly unique. Like any sport, ice hockey teams would require a combination of skill and toughness, which is usually filled by a group of players who have strengths in one or the other. A power forward is a lucky combination of both; a player who has enough talent to contribute to the team but also has that physicality and aggression that is so important. I assume in ice hockey, a power forward is also intended to be an intimidatory presence who not only hits hard but who has that nasty disposition that makes opposition players feel like they are treading on eggshells. The only difference for the ice hockey "power forward" is that they are expected to fight and stand up for themselves and their teammates; however, even that is a pretty minor difference since I'm sure most good power forwards only fight a few times a year and are more valuable to their team when they remain on the field.

I guess in ice hockey that would be Todd Bertuzzi (who you mention) or Cam Neeley (who is one of the only hockey players I know of). But in rugby league it is a role filled by players like Ian Roberts or Adrian Morely and in rugby you could argue that players like Bakkies Botha and Martin Johnson fit that criteria of skillful and incredibly aggressive players. But it is also worth pointing out that players like that are rare; they are definitely not the norm. Not only are they hard to find but most teams can only afford to carry one or two before they cease to be useful and just become undisciplined, distracting influences on the team. I'm certain this is true in ice hockey too. Just by looking at the stats on the NHL's site, which are wonderfully easy to read as a novice, players who score points and take lots of penalties are very rare. There are only ~30 players in the league who had 100 penalties and looking at the points they scored, a lot of them seemed to be the "enforcers" rather than your "power forward". Looking at the stats for ice hockey, it seems that most players are a balance of scoring and penalties, which is no different to any other sport.

Which brings us back to my original comment. I don't believe that in most sports, including ice hockey, a coach would ever get on a player's back for not taking enough penalties. The only exception would be the enforcer in ice hockey, since I assume he is a waste of space if he isn't belting blokes. I think most coaches would actually prefer their players to take less penalties are long as it didn't result in them becoming pussies. A coach would only be hounding a playing for taking too few penalties if it was a symptom of a radical change in their style of play.

For what is it worth, I don't think our opinions on penalties and discipline in sport are that different. Perhaps the only adjustment I would make is replacing ice hockey with rugby union in your original comment. I think rugby union is one of the few sports where you would see a coach getting on a players back for not taking enough penalties and encouraging them to really push the limits. And that is because of the nuances of the breakdown in rugby and how pivotal it is to the game and how variable the policing of it is. Pushing the bounds in rugby makes more sense because the payoff is significantly higher than in other sports.

 

Within reason. A quick Google search on Todd Bertuzzi reveals exactly what I thought:

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2012/03/todd-bertuzzi-paid-too-big-price.html

Players who hit hard, score and are aggressive are valuable. But lots of penalties still suck and decrease the value of the player. It is no surprise that this opinion of Todd Bertuzzi exists.

It is the same thing that has been said time after time in other sports, whether you're talking about Bakkies Botha, or JWH, or Anthony Watmough, or Gareth Hock, or Ben Westwood, or Simon Shaw ... the list goes on.