I think that the "situation/moment" aspect of "clutch" is crucial. I think it was Larry Bird who made a comment about anybody being able to make a shot, or 3 pointer, in the first 3 quarters of a game, what set certain players apart from the rest is their ability to hit those shots in the 4th. To take it a step further, I don't think players get to the level of being considered "clutch" unless they hit those shots in the playoffs, specifically in the Finals. IMO that is a given, but I think most people take it to the level of it has to be a game winner, or the last shot taken by the winning team. The .4 second example is perfect because nobody takes in to account the clutch shot TD made just before. The shots that TD and Fisher made where more luck than clutch IMO, but both players have made clutch shots throughout their careers.
IMO most people confuse clutch with game winning or buzzer beater shots, its much more than that and a little more than a statistical analysis of shots made/missed in the closing minutes of close games.
There is that little something that players like Bird, Reggie, Cassell, Jordan, Kobe, and a few others have that demands they have the ball in their hands for that critical shot.
You combine opportunity, desire, and results together and you get "clutch". You don't get "clutch" without all 3 ingredients.
You don't need a clutch player to have a winning team but you need one to win titles. Conversly, a cluch player alone doesn't guarantee a winning team let alone a championship.
My problem with your idea is that I don't think demanding the shot makes you "clutch," whereas I do think the ability to "rise to the occasion," even if you're not the #1 or #2 option *DOES* make you "clutch." The example I would cite is Robert Horry. No one can deny that he was clutch. Yet he wasn't a demander - simply a person who perfromed when given the opportunity by his teammates. Not being demanding may make him less of a superstar, but I don't think it makes him less "clutch."
Nor do I think you need to do it at every level in order to be "clutch," however, you should do it at the highest levels you arrive at. My example here is Reggie Miller, who, in my opinion, is amont the two or three most "clutch" players that I've seen. He never did it at the grand, "Finals" scale that, for example, Paxson or Kerr did. But I'd call him far more "clutch" than Paxson or Kerr.
But I am starting to believe that there are two different levels of clutch.
The first level, the most commonly thought of one, is those players who, in big moments, make big plays, with the demands being placed on them to make big plays. These are the people who don't necessarily hit the last-second shot, but who come up big, and usually in the closing minutes, of "the important games." Notable about this level is that players from this level aren't just expected to hit the "big shot," but they're expected to have a "big game." Names from this list include Jordan, Miller, Bird, Bryant, etc.
The second level are the players who make the single big play, at the moment the opportunity for their more limited, more singularly defined contribution. These would be players like Robert Horry, or Steve Kerr, or John Paxson.
So, this leads me to question the idea of what we should call a player who shows up big in many situations, but not in the closing moments, or what we should call a player who pretty much has an awful "big game," but does close it out regularly. And how should we account for notable stink bombs (e.g., Bryant's game 7 against Phoenix...can't remember the year) during big games?
I find all this interesting because I think we're eventually going to need a way to evaluate LeBron James. He's had some spectacular performances, and some notable stink bombs. LeBron's failures generally come across, though, as "coming up small in big games." Let's say that he continues this trend, but manages to start "pulling it out by making the big play at the last moment." Does that make him clutch?
And Kobe has had his share of stink bombs, too, - generally more of the "makes a bad mistake at a critical moment, but still has a good game" variety, although he's had his Game 7 vs. Phoenix stuff, too; I don't think he's not "clutch."
One thing we can see is that Kobe demands the ball in the closing minutes, whereas James doesn't. Then again, is that just Kobe being Kobe and LeBron being LeBron, because generally speaking, Kobe *ALWAYS* demands the ball, whereas James generally DOESN'T - and I don't think *THAT* is being clutch/not clutch on either's part. (It's just being selfish.)
And if we get into historical players - let's look at Russell. He came up traditionally big in game 7's, but he wasn't the "last second shot" guy. He never lost a Game 7. (Even Jordan cannot say that.) So why is Jordan looked at as infinitely more clutch than Russell? (My answer is, "Because most people don't know their basketball history except from watching it on SportCenter.") Is it somehow bad that Sam Jones takes the shot for the Celitcs, or Havlicek steals the ball? Does that negate Russell's huge contribution?
I think there's something to explore here, but I'm having a real tough time getting a grip on what it is, and more importantly, how best to measure it.
