The mark of a great point guard is many

A basketball scribe recently posted that "The mark of a great PG is wins," lauding Virginia's London Perrantes as one of the best in college. Who the writer was and even who London Parrantes is isn't important here -- the stated premise is the critical element and deserves exploring.

It's true that a point guard generally handles the ball the majority of the time and, as a result, has the opportunity to affect a game in more ways than players at the other positions. He is also generally the critical lead on defense if designated to defend his positional counterpart. So the possibility of being more impactful comes with the position.

But what about an excellent point who is surrounded by mediocre talent? Is he expected to make all the difference in producing victories or else be considered less than stellar?

That seems an unfair prerequisite because a player has no say in who is recruited to the team he plays for nor who he actually plays alongside in games. It may be a difficult if impossible metric to measure (but can't everything be determined nowadays?) but how much better/more effective does a point make his teammates seems to be the most valid crowning achievement of a great one.