Since when is being a cheap shot artist considered "toughness"?
Since Darius Kasparaitus.
Possibly even before that.
Honestly, i don't see how someone can watch Trouba play and frame him as "just a cheap shot artist" and completely discount the impact of that sort of player and physical threat to crossing the blueline, cruising into the corner to retrieve that puck, going to the net, etc.
Whether he's a "cheap shot artist" or not...there's a clear element of physicality to his game that is going to make certain players think an extra tick of the clock about things on the ice, and make some personal "business decisions" about just how vulnerable they're willing to make themselves when trying to make plays in the same vicinity as Trouba.
I feel like "Physicality" is the thing that a lot of fans most consistently fail to account for appropriately. It's probably the thing that the "analytics" have the biggest blindspot around. It's not about tallying up how many "hits" a guy accumulates, or PIMs or whatever directly measurable metric. It's about appreciating the presence a particular player physically imposes on the ice.
The strangest facet of the issue though, is that there seems to be some pretty universal recognition when a particularly completely and utterly lacks the "physicality" to be effective, at the opposite end of the spectrum. But for whatever reason, there's a midpoint in the scale where the evaluation stops sliding for a lot of people. Like there's a clear recognition that "soft as butter" is hugely detrimental to effectiveness. But somehow "physically imposing" at the opposite end is often discounted as not particularly relevant?