Hang on, let me summerize really quickly before this thread gets closed, because it definitely had some good thoughts, but then it turned into ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Side A:
Yes, adding shotblocking will lower cost efficiency, but is necessary to beat LI team.
Side B:
Adding SB is not cost effective, only rational thing to do is to choose the most "bang for buck".
Basically the argument? Right?
Well, my two cents are looking at cost as a exponetial function, with each successive level of skills as less cost effective. Ideally, we would know how many "utils" a given skill would have, and could compare its cost. We could then make a rational judgement.
On the low end, SB is probably the most cost effective, probably up until prominent (10). Then it might be more cost effective to train OD, ID, etc. HOWEVER, there is an abundancy of LI teams, so while training SB might not be cost effective against your average, balanced team, the fact that you are more likely to encounter a LI team tips the scales towards SB (maybe only until 13, or 14).
While one might get a better overall defender by adding a level of OD instead of SB, because there are so many LI teams, it makes more economic sense in the long run to add the SB, since it will get "used" more often.
Lastly, the BBs seem to encourage balance, (SFs have lowest salaries, cross training, the elastic effect) so it seems out of character for them to make a useless or cost inefficent skill. just my two cents.
Oh, actually, lastly, we had a really good discussion, and I hope we can keep it going, but purely intellectually, lets try not to get emotionally attached to our arguments.