Cavsfansince84 wrote:Is Jokic's last 5 years up there with the best of all time? Yes, but the issue I have with the way the op has been framed is the playoffs as just team based success when its also a good indicator of how dominating a player can be as an individual at times. So its not just 'oh he got a ring' but also how well a player played in those games. So on that basis I'd say MJ, Russell and LeBron all still have him somewhat easily beat because even though Jokic has been mostly good to great in the playoffs when players are having 3-4 good to great series every year its a testament to their resiliency and more so doing it year after year which means more games and a shorter offseason. I think he's maybe up there with 71-75 Kareem though I think Kareem's defense still wins it for him. Jokic is probably in the 6-10 range imo.
I don’t think this is a crazy view to take—indeed, I imagine it’s a very mainstream one—but I think the history of some of the GOAT-prime guys’ careers suggests that playoff success is very dependent on their team. After all, for both LeBron and Jordan, their most successful years in the playoffs did not really map on precisely with the consensus view of when they were at their best as individual players. Rather, for both LeBron and Jordan, they actually failed in the playoffs for several years during their very best timespan as players. They both broke through and won a title or two while still in their best years, but overall they both actually had earlier playoff exits and/or fewer titles in their very best years individually than they had in later years. Of course, for both of them, this is because their teams became a lot better in those later years. For purposes of team results, that outweighed the fact that they were not quite at their best anymore (though, of course, those two guys not quite at their best was still *really* good). That suggests we shouldn’t look dogmatically to playoff results to tell us exactly how good a player’s peak several years were. If we did that, we’d conclude that LeBron and Jordan were at their best in years that I really don’t think they were. Given that, I’m not sure it works on its own as an argument against Jokic. Of course, that isn’t to say team success doesn’t matter. It does. But it’s just part of the puzzle, and needs to be understood in context.
The other thing I’d note is that, if we’re talking about five-year primes specifically, MJ and LeBron don’t actually have Jokic beat all that much in team success. Depending on how we define MJ’s best five years, we’re actually probably looking at 1 or 2 titles in those years, while LeBron’s best five years resulted in 2 titles. Jokic has won 1 title in the last five years. So, at least aside from Russell, it’s not like the comparison here is to players who won way more in the given five-year span.
