Chris Graythen/Getty Images

There is a kind of mythology around the notion of a "pure point guard" or a "true point guard." It stipulates that there is a pre-defined role for the point guard to be a "pass-first" player, who looks to create offense for his teammates first, as this correlates more with efficient offenses and winning championships.

The mythology contains an inherent lie, that the point guard who "passes first" wins championships, while the "shoot first" point guard loses. In fact, only one player in the last 50 years has led the league in assists and won the NBA title in the same year.

That was Magic Johnnson in 1987, who also happened to lead his team in scoring. Since '87, teams that have had a point guard either first or second in scoring have won seven championships. The lowest scorer among those seven was Chauncey Billups with 16.9 points.

Only three teams other than those have had point guard average five assists and win. In other words, "scoring" point guards fare far better than passing point guards.

The whole notion that assists mean more than anything with a point guard is simply false. If it weren't, John Stockton would hands down be the greatest point guard in NBA history.

In fact if you look at the top 10 in NBA history in assists, there are only three players with rings, and two of those—Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson—were what would be described today as "scoring" point guards.

This whole modern notion that somehow a point guard that both has and utilizes an ability to score is impure is baseless. The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they are little more than urban myths or selective stats that simply do not hold up when compared to reality.

Stephen Dunn/Getty Images

This is an argument I've been sitting on for a while. I wanted to bring it up in positive reaction, not a negative one. I finally got it when I read an article recently on Bleacher Report. Behlehem Shoals asks What Makes an NBA Player Pure? in an intelligent and well-written piece.

Playing the point guard position...is multi-dimensional—even more abstract. Paul's ability to penetrate, or Steve Nash's shooting, makes it easier to disrupt defenses and get the team prime opportunities. It's not even a question of stats or skill-sets, but the mysterious "point guard instincts" that some players seem to have and others don't. Having this sixth sense, and being able to back it up with a range of skills, is what makes the truly great point guards fully realized—that is, pure—players.

This tapped into the thought I've been circulating regarding the "point guard position." I'm not saying that Shoals would agree with my thought, disagree with it or even have an opinion on it. He touches on the essential truth of the position, though. It's one often overlooked in the increasingly prevalent debate over the "best point guard."

That truth is that there's no such thing as "a" pure point guard. To suggest that there's a singular and particular type of point guard that is the "pure" point guard or the "true" point guard is specious. It's a cookie-cutter mentality born of a notion that all teams are the same and only one type of skill set works.

There's more than one system. A point guard in the triangle offense is asked to do something different than one who runs a dribble drive, or drive-and-kick offense. A point guard that runs a flex offense is asked to do something entirely different still.

Elsa/Getty Images

Therefore, it's wrong to evaluate a point guard that runs one type of offense according to what you would expect from a point guard that runs another type of offense. Chris Paul runs a pick-and-roll offense, Rondo a flex offense and Rose a dribble-drive offense. Even with that, those are loose terms that only generally describe the offenses.

Different offenses require different skill sets, so what constitutes a "pure point guard" in each system is a variable not a constant. In a drive-and-kick offense, ball handling, speed and the ability to score are at more of premium. In a flex offense, court vision and passing ability are more at a premium. Each offense has its own version of "pure."

Rose, Rondo and Paul are specifically chosen as three examples of three very different types of point guards who run three very different systems. In the case of Rose and Paul, the systems were designed around the player. In the case of Rondo. the player was chosen for the system. In all three cases, it would be impure for them to try and mimic what either of other two do.

It's not any "one" ability that matters in any system or in any point guard. It's the composite of them all and how it is meshed with the players on his team. The point guard position as some sort of constant without variables.

In fact, one could argue that purity of the point guard is most rooted in is ability to make his particular set of talents influence and improve the talents of those around him. Derrick Rose scores, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make players around him better. Consider what Joey Whealon wrote back in February.

According to Synergy Sports Technology, Rose passes 25 percent of the time when he isolates with the basketball, which is not a particularly high mark, but consider that when including passes out of this setting as well he produces a scoring efficiency of 1.125 points per possession with an adjusted field goal percentage of 54.3. Not only do these mark(s) rank higher than other elite point guards like (Steve) Nash, Rajon Rondo, Deron Williams and Chris Paul, but also well above other primary scorers including Kobe Bryant, Lebron James and Dirk Nowitzki.

In other words, Rose's scoring makes him a better passer. When Rose is scoring, it could be argued that he is a more effective passer than even Paul and Rondo. So why precisely should he score less? The normal implication is that if he scored less, his teammates would score more. The statistical analysis shows that when he is scoring more, his teammates are more effective.

Rondo gets criticized for not doing what he should be doing, which is shooting from the perimeter. Certainly he could improve in that area, but until he does, he is playing within his limitations. Is he surrounded by Hall of Fame players? Yes, but that doesn't make him less "pure" in the system he runs.

Rondo is an outstanding passer, and when he's on the court it makes a huge impact. The Celtics have 67 percent of their field goals assisted while he's on the court compared to just 56 percent when he's not. Those who say that anyone could run that system are sadly mistaken and provably wrong.

Harry How/Getty Images

Paul has made David West a two-time All-Star. What else do you need to say about that? As with Rondo, the Hornets have 11 percent more of their field goals assisted though it's a smaller percentage overall. Why? In part because Paul creates shots for himself as well as his teammates.

Rose, it goes the other way around. The Bulls actually have a higher percentage of their shots assisted while he's off the court, but that's because Rose has such an amazing unassisted field-goal ratio. In fact, he made more unassisted field goals than any player in the NBA this year.

If you're looking for me to come up with some final conclusion that says any of the three is the "purest," you can keep looking. That's the whole point of this piece. Each is the purest for what they do.

The key here isn't that anyone is doing their job "wrong," but that they are all doing different jobs well. Not all point guards are asked to do the same thing, and each of the three do what they are asked to do as well as anyone. So why would there be any fault in that?

Critics need to let go of this mythological ideal of a pure point guard. The notion is wrong-headed and historically inaccurate. The only pure point guard is the one who runs the system the way he is intended to run it. Rose, Rondo and Paul are all pure point guards because they all run their systems the right way.