Just "nominally" speaking, has there ever been a better PO run than Jokic's '23?

[Rubios]

30/13.5/9.5 with 63.1% and just 3 TO per game.

I know the quality of opposition is regarded as one of the "easiest". Could be.
But, on the other hand, he faced two defensive first tiers in Gobert and AD.

Thoughts?

[UglyBugBall]

TBH I don't consider Jokic's playoff run top 5 this century.

LeBron has at least two better ones. In 2016, he came back from 3–1 against a 73 win Warriors team, led both teams in every major stat, and made the clutch plays. In 2012, he carried Miami with monster games, especially that 45 point game vs Boston in Game 6. 2013 was insane too, dominant all around and ended with a title.

Shaq in 2001 was a monster. He averaged 30+ and destroyed everyone, only lost one game the whole playoffs.

Tim Duncan in 2003 basically carried a team with no other stars. He beat prime Kobe and Shaq, then dropped a near quadruple-double in the Finals to win.

Dirk in 2011 beat the Lakers, Thunder, and the Heat’s Big 3, all in one run. He didn’t have the stats like Jokic but the path and clutch moments were unreal.

Kawhi in 2019 beat a stacked Philly team, then the Bucks, and then outplayed the Warriors, on a team he was just traded to that never won before.

Giannis in 2021 had that 50 point Finals closeout with a messed up knee. Lol You can reasonably argue that the Jokic run is equal or maybe even better than this one, but I have this Giannis one slightly ahead personally.

Jokic had great numbers in 2023, but he also faced injured teams and didn’t have to go through the toughest path. The Wolves were an 8 seed, the Suns had no depth and were thrown together mid season, the Lakers were a 7 seed and gassed, and in the Finals they faced an 8 seed Heat team that was missing key players and already overachieving. He dominated, but he didn’t face a true title contender at full strength.

If you're only looking at stats, maybe he has a case, although I think Tim Duncan, Shaq and LeBron were still more impressive adjusting for era. But context beyond numbers matters and those other runs were more impressive to me personally.

[brutalitops]

Off my head

Dirk
Lebron in 2015 where Cleveland didn't win and Iggy won it for eventually bringing him down to demi-god level then godlike.
Lebron 2018
Kahwi 2019/Shaq 2001/Timmy 2004(super under rates) probably equal to Jokic

Also really rate Giannis' close out effort 2021

[brutalitops]

TBH I don't consider Jokic's playoff run top 5 this century.

LeBron has at least two better ones. In 2016, he came back from 3–1 against a 73 win Warriors team, led both teams in every major stat, and made the clutch plays. In 2012, he carried Miami with monster games, especially that 45 point game vs Boston in Game 6. 2013 was insane too, dominant all-around and ended with a title.

Shaq in 2001 was a monster. He averaged 30+ and destroyed everyone, only lost one game the whole playoffs.

Tim Duncan in 2003 basically carried a team with no other stars. He beat prime Kobe and Shaq, then dropped a near quadruple-double in the Finals to win.

Dirk in 2011 beat the Lakers, Thunder, and the Heat’s Big 3, all in one run. He didn’t have the stats like Jokic but the path and clutch moments were unreal.

Kawhi in 2019 beat a stacked Philly team, then the Bucks, and then outplayed the Warriors, on a team he was just traded to that never won before.

Giannis in 2021 had that 50 point Finals closeout with a messed-up knee. You can reasonably argue that the Jokic run is equal or maybe even better than this one, but I have this Giannis one slightly ahead personally.

Jokic had great numbers in 2023, but he also faced injured teams and didn’t have to go through the toughest path. The Wolves were an 8 seed, the Suns had no depth and were thrown together mid season, the Lakers were a 7 seed and gassed, and in the Finals they faced an 8 seed Heat team that was missing key players and already overachieving. He dominated, but he didn’t face a true title contender at full strength.

If you're only looking at stats, maybe he has a case, although I think Tim Duncan, Shaq and LeBron were still more impressive adjusting for era. But context beyond numbers matters. And those other runs were more impressive to me.

I will never ever take away a title from someone. Jokic has one, stuff everyone else.

However this era is ultra competitive and things do have to break for you in a certain way. Moreso then pre 2018

[UglyBugBall]

I will never ever take away a title from someone. Jokic has one, stuff everyone else.

However this era is ultra competitive and things do have to break for you in a certain way. Moreso then pre 2018

For sure, but basically everything broke perfectly for Jokics run. In the end you beat who you face and that's what matters. But if we're comparing champions and trying to separate them the first two things you're going to look at are the numbers and the competition. Jokic has the numbers, but the competition was the weakest I can personally remember going back to the late 90s when I started following. That's not Jokics fault, but I do have to look at it if I'm comparing that run to others.

[Rubios]

(OP)

I agree, the Nuggets as a team faced lesser opposition.

On the other hand, Joker individually faced Gobert, AD (fully healthy), Bam Bam. It doesn't get much better than that.

[bonita_the_frog]

Does defense count? Guess not, because Jokic's not even a 2-way player...
MJ, Shaq, and Olajuwon's playoff runs are way better, and all the other All-Defensive Team players who had big offensive numbers in the playoffs too.

[Mavrelous]

2011 Dirk
Net Rating/On Off 10/17 against elite teams, Jokic was 9/2 against lesser competition.
28 pts/61 TS% 112 TS+, Jokic had 109 TS+

[MavsDirk41]

Off the top of my head Dirk in 2011

[nate33]

2011 Dirk
Net Rating/On Off 10/17 against elite teams, Jokic was 9/2 against lesser competition.
28 pts/61 TS% 112 TS+, Jokic had 109 TS+

On/off numbers for playoff runs of guys averaging 40 minutes a game aren't really very informative. The problem is the sample size of the "off" is maybe 200 minutes, and good chunk of those minutes might be in garbage time of a blowout game.

Net Rating is still useful.

[Mavrelous]

2011 Dirk
Net Rating/On Off 10/17 against elite teams, Jokic was 9/2 against lesser competition.
28 pts/61 TS% 112 TS+, Jokic had 109 TS+

On/off numbers for playoff runs of guys averaging 40 minutes a game aren't really very informative. The problem is the sample size of the "off" is maybe 200 minutes, and good chunk of those minutes might be in garbage time of a blowout game.

Net Rating is still useful.

I have on/off in long PO run as more useful than RS on/off, because it actually filters out all the garbage lineups and coaching philosophies.
I also have on/off 20 years ago more meaningful than today with the way more advanced team building.
Using on/off w/o without net rating is a fool's errand.

[nate33]

2011 Dirk
Net Rating/On Off 10/17 against elite teams, Jokic was 9/2 against lesser competition.
28 pts/61 TS% 112 TS+, Jokic had 109 TS+

On/off numbers for playoff runs of guys averaging 40 minutes a game aren't really very informative. The problem is the sample size of the "off" is maybe 200 minutes, and good chunk of those minutes might be in garbage time of a blowout game.

Net Rating is still useful.

I have on/off in long PO run as more useful than RS on/off, because it actually filters out all the garbage lineups and coaching philosophies.
I also have on/off 20 years ago more meaningful than today with the way more advanced team building.
Using on/off w/o without net rating is a fool's errand.

On/off numbers are extremely "noisy" statistically and simply must have a large sample size of both "on" and "off" to have meaning.

[Mavrelous]

On/off numbers for playoff runs of guys averaging 40 minutes a game aren't really very informative. The problem is the sample size of the "off" is maybe 200 minutes, and good chunk of those minutes might be in garbage time of a blowout game.

Net Rating is still useful.

I have on/off in long PO run as more useful than RS on/off, because it actually filters out all the garbage lineups and coaching philosophies.
I also have on/off 20 years ago more meaningful than today with the way more advanced team building.
Using on/off w/o without net rating is a fool's errand.

On/off numbers are extremely "noisy" statistically and simply must have a large sample size of both "on" and "off" to have meaning.

That's why I use it only for deep PO runs, On/Off isn't a good stat in general, I'm not a fan of it.

[AleksandarN]

I would rate Dirk’s run in 2011 better

[Mirotic12]

Both of Hakeem's playoff runs in '94 and ' 95 were better.

[MrBigShot]

17-18 LeBron, Dirk 2011 is arguable

[Lalouie]

the quality of the opposition is he plays in the West

[MrGoat]

Sure. Shaq averaged 38 and 16 in the 2000 Finals in a much lower scoring era with his second option Kobe Bryant only averaging 15 on terrible efficiency. 2011 Dirk was automatic in the 4th quarters against higher level competition. 91 Jordan with 31.2 points, 6.6 rebounds, 11.4 assists, 2.8 steals, 1.4 blocks.

[bkkrh]

Does defense count? Guess not, because Jokic's not even a 2-way player...
MJ, Shaq, and Olajuwon's playoff runs are way better, and all the other All-Defensive Team players who had big offensive numbers in the playoffs too.

Does passing count? Do 3 pointers count? Do Free Throws count? It´s kinda funny how there is always the focus on the weaknesses of one player because being an average defender doesn´t make him a 2 way player, while his advantages and especially the weaknesses of other players completely get ignored. Especially considering that Shaq had some flaws on defense as well, namely defending pick and roll and not always giving the most effort.

[bonita_the_frog]

Does defense count? Guess not, because Jokic's not even a 2-way player...
MJ, Shaq, and Olajuwon's playoff runs are way better, and all the other All-Defensive Team players who had big offensive numbers in the playoffs too.

Does passing count? Do 3 pointers count? Do Free Throws count? It´s kinda funny how there is always the focus on the weaknesses of one player because being an average defender doesn´t make him a 2 way player, while his advantages and especially the weaknesses of other players completely get ignored. Especially considering that Shaq had some flaws on defense as well, namely defending pick and roll and not always giving the most effort.

I always focus on defense, because its HALF of basketball. It just happens to be Jokic's weakness. Passing isn't HALF of basketball.
Three-point shooting isn't HALF of basketball either (and its an especially small factor for a center, even today).

Shaq was a 2-way player (and protected the rim better than most), Jokic is not even close to being a 2-way player. You don't need to be a perfect all-around defender to be a "2-way player", just as you don't need to be a perfect all-around offender...

Shaq was All-Defensive 2nd Team x3, and that would be physically impossible for Jokic to accomplish (not that he needs to to be a 2-way, but just saying even his physical potential is limited).