Be Top Traditional Point Guard or win the champ - What is better ?

[nbacard]

Today, I saw one post in my country NBA community.

They has argued about Top Traditional best 5 point guard.

Person posts told top 5 point guard is CP3, Deron, Nash, Kidd and Billups.

Tony Parker is not..because his assist average is not above 10.
(Of course, he told Parker is one of Great Player but not like Stockton type PG but Allen Iverson or Baron Davis)

Then some Spurs Fans insist why Tony Parker is not there..

I'm just curious.

For me, Best Traditional Position is not important.
(Like one of my best favorite player Big Shot Rob..
He had won 7 rings..)

But it is only my OP.

What do you think about that?

One guy commented like this..lol
Bob Cousy had never been over 10 assist average in any season.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Deron, Kidd, and Nash are traditional point guards, but guys like CP3, Parker, and even Billups are converted two guards with great point guard skills (I first remember hearing about this concept from Bob Cousy in the 1990s, who said Isiah Thomas and Kevin Johnson were examples of two guards at the point guard position who may have a primary scoring mentality, but great passing abilities as well).

While I do think it'd be better for the league to have more traditional, "true" point guards, I agree that it's not a necessity for a championship team. The Bulls never had one in the 1990s, but Pippen took over the role as main ballhander admirably. Likewise, Parker has won three rings with the Spurs, so I'd say he's just fine where he is.

The most important thing is how well the team passes the ball around as a unit, not what the one point guard does. Teams like the Spurs and Bulls distributed the ball around the horn well; almost everyone on those teams could find an open man when needed.

[RenegadeLonghorn]

JammingJames23 laid it out perfectly with great examples.

Personally, I would take a championship ring over being a PG who averaged a double double for the career (with no rings).