To be good or to be clutch?

This is a Machiavelli "to be loved or to be feared" question - if you had to pick, would you want a player that was good? or one that came through for you in the critical moments? And is there really as big a distinction as some people make it out to be?

On the side of "good" are your Dirk Nowitzcki's, A-Rod's, and pre-2007 Peyton Manning: players that at one point or another lead the league in kiss-ass stats but, at the critical moments, couldn't take their game to the next level. We're not just talking giving out mediocre performances. In Dirk's case, we're talking monumental meltdown to the point where Avery Johnson told him to quit bitching and start leading. A-Rod is self-explainatory here. In Peyton's case, we're talking sideline fits watching his defense which then turn into wild hailmary's. (Keep in mind, even in the 2007 AFC, he had a first quarter meltdown before coming back and winning the game.)

Think, for a second, of one of the now old Bulls-Jazz series where, with the game on the line, Karl Malone went to the line for the game tying free-throws. Pippen goes and whispers in his ear "The Mailman doesn't deliver on Sundays." And the mailman misses. Twice. (People seem to forget that - however great MJ was - the Jazz were ALWAYS close in their series; but MJ always pulled it off in the decision time.)

Andy Roddick, Phil Mickelson, every sport has them. Good, Great players. Who just don't finish the deals.

On the side of "clutch" are the players that do their best work when the game/series/season is on the line. LeBron's recent playoff performance is one, with 41 points in a game where EVERY piston was guarding him. MJ, Kobe, Brady and Vinateri - players that are already good, but that in the key moments of a game go into overdrive mode. These are players that know that every person on the other team is gunning for him, and yet still puts up the big numbers, because they LOVE the spotlight.

i bring up this point because i've noticed that this is probably a distinction that carries to non-athletic pursuits. i tutor the LSATs, and one frequent complaint i get from students is test-time anxiety. otherwise good students who, when the time begins to tick, start panicking, start making mistakes. other students, on the other hand, actually do better on test day - they focus more, read more carefully, their brain works on overdrive, and suddenly their score jumps a few more points from every diag that they take.

now, here's the dilemma: it might sound like you'd always want "clutch" players, since they perform when it counts. but clutch players can also start taking their "clutch-ness" for granted. see Pistons or the Heat. In the Piston's case, they seem in playoff series to always win the first few games, let down their guard, and end up having to fight their way back. In the Heat's, they don't even bother showing up for the regular season. It works, but it also risks embarrassing failures to launch.

with students, a clutch student just assumes that he'll do better on the actual test, so doesn't bother studying up for the test.

so which is better?