I've been developing two point guards who are now age 20. Let's say I have the choice to acquire either two 18-year-old SG prospects, or two 18-year-old C prospects. Would alternating single-position training at PG and C develop 2 guards and 2 big men enough, or should I stick to SG/PG two-position training for 4 guards?
In other words, how effective is 2-position training relative to 1-position? If it's exactly half, then it's a break-even proposition: half a season of 100% = a ful season of 50%. I'm sure it's more than half, but I'm not sure how much more. However, is it worth it to sacrifice some efficiency to develop young players at two positions instead of one?
My trainer level is exceptional, no specialties. It's a hypothetical question, so assume both sets of prospects are equal in starting talent and potential.
2 position training (other than things like JS/1 on 1/RB that are two position only) is probably more around 70%. It's not something you want to do with high potential players, since part of the value of high potential players is that they can end up being extremely good players, but they need to be trained in a dedicated manner to reach those potentials.
Training centers half a season and guards half a season is something even less useful. It would be basically mean that four players progress even less than they would if they were being trained fulltime even in two positions.
Of those two choices, the 2 position training is clearly better. But you would definitely need to downgrade your trainer too -- the whole point of paying more for trainers of higher levels is to squeeze that little bit extra out of them, and if you're going to be two positioning, you'd just be wasting money.
One alternative to consider is possibly getting two guys who might be good future SF types as your trainees, and then you can train guard or big men skills on them as that would be useful for both. That's the scenario I see that fits best with what it seems like you want to do and with where you are at the moment.