I think your definition of “elite” is way too generous just for the purpose of fitting your thesis.
If Horace Grant and Tyson Chandler are “elite”, I want to know what your definition of “elite” is, because right now it really comes off as whoever you want it to be.
I have a feeling if Golden State was winning, you’d suddenly consider David Lee (2x All-Star) or Bogut “elite.”
Dennis Rodman grows to 6’9” to fit your definition of big, while basketball-reference and nba.com list him as 6’7”, and he’ll tell you he’s 6’6”.
And you can’t take a snap shot of the 4 teams that look like they’ll be in the Conference Finals and say that proves a point. Because then that point dies when you have teams like OKC (oh wait, is Ibaka “elite” level now?) who made the Finals last year, and was a favorite to contend this year, before Westbrook went down.
And yet why do all these other teams with “elite” level bigs still lose, often to teams with lesser “elite” bigs?
Or teams with “elite” level bigs perform much worse when their “elite" level guard is injured (LAL, Chicago).
Or we could point to the failures of teams that drafted for size instead of best player available (Bowie, Olowokandi, O’Bryant, Swift: Robert or Stromile, Thabeet, etc.). You think Philly would have made a Finals had they drafted Camby (who I guess is “elite” since Chandler is) over Iverson in ‘96? What if Chicago went with Beasley over Rose in search of that elite big? You think they'd be better off?
Has Atlanta ever looked good with their two "elite" level bigs?
I think it’s more of a myth that there’s some magic formula for building a championship team.
Although that being said, I would think it’s common sense, that the game of basketball, where the goal is to get the ball into a 10 foot hoop while keeping your opponents from doing the same, that a team with strength and size would likely have the best chance of doing that. And I don’t particularly like next year’s Celtics chances without Garnett either, or with him for that matter.
I just don’t think your point, and the evidence you provided really proves anything.
Yes a team without a lot of good players usually won't win, and as LooseCannon pointed out there's only 5 positions, so good teams will usually have elite players at every position, especially when you basically narrow it down to 3 positions of big, guard, and wing that get to be filled by 5 players.