You have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning titles with the best player being a PG.
Parker, while a great PG, played with Duncan.
It is really hard to build a title contender around the smallest position on the court.
I've been saying that for years on this board. PG is the least successful position, even just based on all star appearances of the last 25 years or so, even among teams in the Finals (not just winners but losers as well).
I've hypothesized that. First, the PG does the most work on both ends of the floor. Thus, because they work harder they tire more quickly and thus are much less effective down the stretch, which is why you don't want that guy being your main scorer or best player. Second, because they are so much smaller, they take a lot more damage proportionally than any other position. That damage equates to lost time and inefficiency when playing. They are just much more prone to getting hurt and therefore you can't rely on them to play 80+ games and be fully healthy for the playoffs when you need them.
Both of these, as well as some other minor things, lead to the conclusion that you should never build around a PG. It is just too difficult and the results bear that out (Magic was a physical specimen like no other and Isiah was surrounded by HOFers and thus they are more the exception than the rule).
The results don't bear that out at all. You're looking at all the teams in the finals and marking down which positions the better players play and deciding that the positions that you see the most of is the most valuable. That would make sense if you accounted for the impact transcendent players had on the teams getting to the finals, but you don't.
For instance, did Pippen enjoy more playoff success than Isiah because he's a SF and not a PG or because his teammate was Jordan? The answer's fairly obvious, but it's exactly the opposite of what your study claims. All you're figuring out is that the players who have the most success are the teammates of superstars.
What you should look at is the makeup of teams that get to the finals (or conference finals if you need more teams) that *don't* have Bird/Magic/MJ/Shaq/TD/Isiah/Kobe/LeBron. If most of those teams generally have weak point guards then you'll have a point. I don't think you'll find that to be true, though. What you said about the shortcomings of having a pg being one of your best players is probably somewhat true but the benefit of having one of your best players control the ball the most and run the offense is greater than you think.
Well the most recent championship team on that list, had an ancient Jason Kidd as its starting PG who was at best the 4th best player on his team. Before that you had the Celtics with a 2nd year PG that was at best the 4th best player on the team. Before that the Pistons and while Billups won the Finals MVP, he was the 3rd or 4th best player on that team throughout the regular season (at least after the wallace trade).
Now if you look at the finals losers. 2 years ago you had OKC with Westbrook as the 2nd best player (though some might argue that it was Harden, though Harden was awful in the finals). 2010 you had Boston, Rondo was much better than when Boston won (and was an all star) but still the 4th best player on that team. 2009 you had the Magic with Rafer Alston. 2002 and 2003 you had the Nets with Kidd very much in his prime. 2001 you had the Sixers with Snow (though you could argue Iverson as well). 2000 you had the Pacers with Mark Jackson well past his prime (probably 5th or 6th best player on that team). 1999 you had the Knicks with Charlie Ward.
In other words, PG's don't mean a whole heck of a lot even on the teams without the transcendent players.
