What position(s) is more important to win an NBA Championship? PG or PF/C

TRADITIONALLY:

I think a good big man can carry a bunch of scrubs to a title more than a good point guard can in the NBA. In most all leagues under the NBA, from park ball on up to D-League, a good point guard can make a team sizzle. But not so seemingly in the NBA. There's a reason Phil Jackson hasn't put a high priority on the point guard position. Even with the new rules its still the point guard strapped Lakers triangle winning titles, along with having LENGTH and sturdy post defense with it.

• Boston won their title in spite of Rondo, not because of him. (Boston got back TO the finals because of Rondo, but they have so much all-around talent.)
• Everyone's on the Brandon Jennings caravan but Andrew Bogut is their best player.
• Baron Davis played out of his mind years ago in the playoffs when GS upset Dallas. He was the best PG in that postseason. The Nellie-ball system which favors those guards, believing guards win titles, they got quickly bounced in the following round.
• Deron Williams is superb, but can he take a team to the finals without a quality big?
• Even Derrick Rose, the Bulls teams before him had the same record with Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon. His talent is all world, but his team's success has been the same.
• I even think when Denver went to the WCF, there was definitely Chauncey Effect but they also finally had HEALTHY play from their bigs in Kenyon Martin, Nene and Birdman.

CURRENTLY:

I think signs are "point-ing" (hardy har) to PGs having greater effect on a team than before. You can't say the Hornets are a good team without Chris Paul. You can't say the Suns are a good team without Steve Nash. There's also talented bigs NOT leading their teams to better records like Zach Randolph, David Lee, Al Jefferson, Chris Kaman, etc...Troy Murphy is a double-double machine, but what have his teams ever done?


CONCLUSION:

You can definitely put stock into point guards now. Its worth the effort. Don't have to be tied into one philosophy. Still, like Bill Simmons just mentioned in an article, length DOES MATTER in the postseason. The point guards can't get the ball and make plays if his bigs don't defend and rebound that ball forhim.

(Just makes it that more painful looking back on the McGrady-Yao era. That WAS the best approach to a title. Just didnt work out)

 

Let's be clear, every team has a PG, SG, SF, PF and C. So position is stupid.

Most important thing is...True Superstar.

Now I do agree that a interior defensive force is probably one of the most common denominators of champions. But dismissing PGs is being shortsited. IMO Kobe, Wade, and Pippen performed as defacto PGs for their teams. They were the primary ball handlers and distributors. If I just gave you a printout of their role on their team, you would think scoring PG.

SO IMO, if you want to build a championship squad from scratch, I would look for finding these two elements at SUPERSTAR level: Primary ball handler and defensive low post presence. Which to me are the primary elements needed to run and stop the pick and roll.

Usually when you see a team disappointing, it is because they have one without the other which leads to high expectations and low achievement. Either that or they fail to put quality role players around them.

Also, people confuse quality low post scorer with quality low post defender.

This is why Orlando should give up any and everything to combine Howard CP3.

This is why the impact of Melo is kind of overrated. Great player but does not give you either element.

This is also why I think Portland likely wins a title the first time Roy/Oden are healthy to end the season.

 

You can't just look at superstar comparisons. But let's put it this way.

You CAN win without even average PG play. That is, PG can easily be your weakest position and still be contender/winner.

You CANNOT win without solid big men play. You need at least one big man, whether he be technically called a PF or C. This is, as pointed out by Dave_78, for defensive reasons. And it's almost impossible to have a top defense without a top defensive presence inside. The only team that even challenged this point was the 90s Bulls, which featured two of the best perimeter defenders to ever play the game. Not to mention that while Rodman and Grant weren't your typical paint protectors, they were excellent defenders.

PG play, specifically distribution of the ball, can be substituted from other positions. Teams with low post scorers run the offense through big men. Top perimeter players can be "point foward" types where they distribute as well as score. So while having a great PG doesn't hurt. It's not necessary for every offense.

But interior defense requires that big man, which is almost impossible to substitute. And as Rockets fans we saw that clearly last year. That said, as the Bulls and perhaps the Heat will show, if you have incredible perimeter defense, they're not totally necessary. But still, definitely more irreplaceable than PG play.