Part of what needs to be addressed here is the received wisdom that big players take (and make) big shots . . . a notion that seems unobjectionable on its surface, particularly if we’re accepting a priori that the ultimate measure of greatness in sports is victory—specifically, a championship[v]—but fails to consider that different players have different skill-sets. Wade, Bryant, Durant, Carmello, Pierce and a number of other current NBA stars’single greatest asset is their ability to create shots for themselves; James, too, can get his points in isolation play, but some of the very qualities that make him so breathtaking in the open court—along with his creepily complete court-vision, bullet passes, unwaivering willingness to find the open man—actually contribute to him not being quite as naturally inclined, or perhaps even able to play one-on-five “hero-ball” as some of his rivals might in the closing seconds of a given game.

James wants to play the game well, when possible, perfectly—and arguably does, with daunting regularity; in the late-game situations for which he spent nine years withstanding heated criticism, I wonder if two factors weren’t in play:

1.   The stagnation in tie/down-one or -two situations at game’s end—Pierce, Melo, Kobe pounding the ball with clock ticking down—makes for imperfect, ugly basketball, if also the occasional unlikely thrill. In other words, the game—and consequentially its ten participants—are wrenched out of the Flow. The thing gets ugly, throws its elbows in the chops of effortless grace. This just isn’t James’ milieu.

2.   Sometimes he has to wedge himself into that role; and sometimes, is it possible that a certain disillusioned malaise sets in, a kind of despair over the distance between existence perfected, Being qua Being . . . and life as it is messily lived, a sort of Kierkegaardian sickness unto death?

There’s been so much speculation about what was wrong with James during those infamous lapses into seeming indifference or even what appeared to be an active desire to be anywhere other than where he was (i.e., on-court, in front of thousands waiting to measure his ultimate worth as a player based on the outcome of a single game, which would come down to the vicissitudes of a single play that might very well be determined by the reliability of a teammate’s extension and flick of the wrist. . .).