Tommy said it best after the game: Scal is a situational player and today was the perfect situation to play him.
Well, in an ideal situation all our bench players - excluding Cassell, Pruitt and the rookies - are situational players.
Big Baby should only play against post players who can only score in the key - Davis is good taking them out of their comfort zone and is generally too quick and agile to that kind of players.
Powe is effective when he can match up on smaller, weaker front-courts and play off better players (avoiding doubles). When he can't play along our starters his production declines mightily (also due to his inability to pass and to deal with double-teams) and he struggles to defend better, bigger players than him (as most of the starting big men are).
Tony Allen is a defensive wing specialist whose inconsistency and unreliability makes imperative to take him out of the floor when his mind is not the game (because he can really hurt you deep). And although he plays bigger than his size, he's still a guard who matches up poorly with bigger/taller wings and with very limited range/accuracy on his jumper.
House is probably the less situational player of the entire bench, but for most of his entire career he was the poster boy of the situational bench player: he provides lots of 3pt shot attempts in a few minutes; when he's hot, he's a great player to have; when he's cold, you just take him out of the court.
All these guys have short-comings that make them extremely poor fits on some particular situations and acceptable to very good ones on others. That's the definition of a situational player and I don't think Scal is much different relatively to his peers.
There are 3 things to remember:
1. All situational players aren't equal because all possible SITUATIONS are not equally likely happen. Some situations happen on a limited basis and other situations occur more regularly. If you play Toronto and they play a 7 foot small forward at center, that's a great game for Scal, because both players can play bounce their flabby bodies around on the perimeter and not get any rebounds or do anything else remotely related to the center position and neither team is worse for the wear. But this is a rare situation. You only play Toronto four times a year.
2. All situational players are not equal because their defining characteristic--that one and only NBA skill they do well and which defines them as 'situational"--is not equal. I agree, Eddie shoots, TA defends, Powe scores in the post, Baby bodies well in key and these skills--and the fact that each only possess one--are what make them situational players. However, while shooting and scoring comes and goes, defense is often quite consistent. So, while each does only one thing well, the things that those players do are not always consistently exhibited. Further, the manner in which this skill is exhibited in not equal. Both House and Powe are situational players based on offensive ability, yet Powe is the better situational player (more effective in more situations) because his offense is more efficient, closer to the basket, and based on getting contact and getting to the line, while House's is the ultimate hit-or-miss offensive move--the 3 point shot.
3. Scal is the rarest of situational players because he does not even do ONE thing well on the NBA level. He is still, to a marginal degree, a situational player because he has a good BBIQ and he hustles on the court, which can sometimes make up for a lack of talent, athleticism, or any discernible NBA skill in certain situations.
So, make no mistake, while all our bench players might be 'situational' they are in no way similar in their effectiveness. Scal, rest assured, is by far the worst of our situational bench players.
In terms of most suited to every situation (thus being the most situational), I'd rate our bench as follows:
TA
Powe
Pruitt
House
Baby
Scal
POB
As you can see, I rate defensive players as the most valuable situational players because their situational skills are, by nature, the most consistent. Offensive players rate next, because their situational skills are variable, and then hustle/BBIQ players last because such players can be stopped easily by better talent and/or game planning. So, yes, Scal is very different relatively to his peers because he's in the lowest class of situational players, while most, if not all, of our other bench player possess at least ONE situational skill and are thus either defensive or offensive situational players.
