It's funny because Jelme for awhile refused to call up Mason Pate because Clifford Turpin was the exact same player but better. He waited to see how Turpin performed before he he decided upon Pate. Turpin worked out so Pate got called upon.
That is my line of reasoning for not having two of the identical niche player. There is little experience with dealing with them and you don't want to waste a day 1 call-up on two of the same, or very similar player, when they end up not working. That way you only have 1 "wasted" roster spot and not two. If I see that a guard with high IS is a dominant force, I can now feel more confident calling up another one of similar build.
We need them because there are situations that the general combo guard and salary behemoth big don't cut it. Hell there has been several well respected managers that have said the only visable reason we won vs Poland was because of offensive flow. Interestingly enough before the game we called up an 18 OD 15 passing guard, a form of a LI PG, to be our starting PG over our usual, somewhat common, players. Would we have won with Kenny Luther as starting Pg over Selby? I don't know, but we can certainly appreciate such a risky move in a crucial game.
Teams built for one specific offense positions 1-5 on the court have succeeded in BB. Why not now?
Last edited by oriolekid at 11/2/2011 8:36:07 PM