Devin Booker's latest stinker in a higher-stakes game is raising some concerns. Let's talk about Elimination Book and whether it's really a thing.

-Gerald Bourguet

Is Elimination Devin Booker really a thing?

As a certified superstar, every bad Devin Booker performance is going to come with an elevated level of scrutiny.

The Phoenix Suns are 9-3 this season when Point Book has been there to orchestrate the offense, and he's thriving, ranking in the NBA's top-10 in scoring and top-7 in assists. But apparently none of that matters now, because Booker put up a stinker in the Suns' In-Season Tournament loss to the Los Angeles Lakers.

Finishing with 21 points, 11 rebounds and 6 assists doesn't sound terrible, until you notice Booker also had 7 turnovers and shot 6-of-16 from the floor. He made a number of self-inflicted errors, seemed hesitant to attack the paint with Anthony Davis lurking there, and looked uncomfortable overall against LA's blitzes and double-teams.

It was a stark contrast to what we've seen from Booker so far this season, begging the question: Is Elimination Book really a thing? Does he really shrink from the moment when the Suns face elimination?

First of all, as much as I've been a leading advocate for the NBA's In-Season Tournament, including that quarterfinal loss as an "elimination game" just because it's a do-or-die scenario feels generous. It may come with elevated stakes, but at the end of the day, it still only counts as a regular-season game.

However, whether you include that game or not, Booker's other three elimination games have been atrocious enough to warrant a conversation. For the sake of recency, we'll include the Lakers loss, and as anyone can see, the numbers are flabbergasting:

In four "elimination" games, Devin Booker has averaged 15.8 points, 5.3 assists, 4.5 rebounds and 4.8 turnovers per game, shooting 21-for-65 overall (32.3 percent) and 2-for-15 from 3-point range (13.3%). He's got a total point differential of -81 in those games, and his teams are 0-4 in those contests.

There's no defending that!

We could make excuses about the injuries (or COVID-19) he may or may not have been dealing with in Game 6 against the Milwaukee Bucks, Game 7 against the Dallas Mavericks or Game 6 against the Denver Nuggets, but Booker simply has to be better when his team's back is against the wall. That much is indisputable.

But Booker's value as a playoff performer, clutch playmaker or potential best player on a Finals team shouldn't be chalked up to his track record in elimination games. It's an aggressively shortsighted mistake.

To be fair, it's easy to romanticize players who rise to the occasion in win-or-go-home scenarios. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and so many other all-time greats established the blueprint with their ability to take over high-stakes games, carry their teams, and never say die when the odds are stacked against them. It's a commendable and incredibly useful trait in any do-or-die situation.

But the notion of "clutch" being tied to elimination games is wildly overrated and misleading. The fact of the matter is, in a league where matchups are decided in a best-of-7 series, elimination games are either a tossup Game 7 or a scenario where the team facing elimination is typically outmatched. Best-of-7 series are designed to weed out the inferior teams about 90 percent of the time, so if you're facing elimination in a seven-game series, it's usually not by accident.

Case in point: Of the last 44 NBA champions, 21 of them didn't face a single elimination game during their entire run to the Larry O'Brien trophy. In fact, the 44 championship-winning teams over that stretch played a combined 46 elimination games, and of those 46, 26 came in a tossup Game 7.

It's just not common for title teams to have to repeatedly stave off elimination! The average NBA champion over the last 44 years played an average of 1.04 elimination games per postseason.

In other words, if you're a championship-caliber team, elimination games aren't necessarily part of the equation. Put teams in a hole and make them deal with elimination, and you don't have to worry about it.

A look at how some of the NBA's greatest legends performed in those scenarios is eye-opening as well. Jordan is remembered for being the GOAT, the league's greatest scorer, his unimpeachable 6-0 Finals record and his indomitable will as winning personified. But did you know MJ had a losing record in elimination games for his career, going 6-7 in those scenarios? Or that he was 4-6 when facing elimination until the Chicago Bulls started winning championships?

Of course, Jordan still put up a 31-8-7 stat line in his 13 elimination games, so compared to Booker, he at least balled out. But comparing Booker to the greatest player to ever live is a bit unfair, so let's look elsewhere.

Kobe Bryant, Booker's idol, went 9-10 in elimination games, and his numbers dropped to 22.3 points, 5.8 rebounds and 3.5 assists on 41.4 percent shooting in those contests. Dwyane Wade, another all-time great shooting guard who thought highly of Book, averaged 21.0 points, 5.3 rebounds and 4.2 assists on 42.2 percent shooting in elimination games, barely squeaking out a winning record at 11-10.

Tim Duncan, known for anchoring a San Antonio Spurs dynasty with five championships, went 8-13 in elimination games, with his scoring dipping to 22.3 points per game on sub-50 percent shooting. Shaquille O'Neal went 6-12 in elimination games. Kevin Garnett (11-13), Magic Johnson (6-7), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (11-12) and Oscar Robertson (6-9) all had losing records as well.

Even some of Booker's contemporaries are in a familiar boat. Giannis Antetokounmpo only averages 23.8 points per game in elimination games, breaking even with a 6-6 record. Kevin Durant has put up nearly 30 points per game when facing elimination, but he's only 6-9 in those scenarios. Kawhi Leonard has only put up 22.4 points per game in elimination games, going 4-5.

The first obvious difference is Booker's numbers are still worse than all of those guys. But it's worth noting that Book's sample size is much, much smaller. Most of those guys played 10, 15 or 20 elimination games; Booker's played in 3-4, depending on how you feel about the In-Season Tournament. At 27 years old, he still has time to turn those numbers around, and even one or two 30-point performances would bump his averages way up.

The second, more obvious difference between Booker and those other, future Hall-of-Famers? They've all won championships. And therein lies the NBA's great divider.

Like it or not, until Devin Booker wins a title, his flaws will always be held against him. It's a trend that's occurred throughout NBA history. Until Jordan won a title, he was just a great scorer who didn't make his teammates better and couldn't beat the Detroit Pistons. Until LeBron James won a title, he was overrated and would never touch MJ's legacy.

Even more recently, until Giannis Antetokounmpo won a title, he was a regular-season merchant who "didn't have enough of a bag" to get the Milwaukee Bucks over the top. Nikola Jokic was great, but until he won a title, there were questions about whether a center could really lead a team to the promised land in the modern NBA.

In other words, the same old questions persist until they're answered definitively. Once guys like Giannis and Jokic won a title, the conversation went from "Are they overrated?" to "Where do they rank among the 25 greatest players ever?" Joel Embiid has won an MVP award, and Luka Doncic and Jayson Tatum seem like fair bets to win one at some point, but there are already questions swirling about whether they have what it takes. Why? Because they haven't done it yet.

Ring culture dictates that we don't appreciate all-time greats until they win it all. And then as soon as they do, nobody gives a damn about what their stats were in elimination games.

Be honest: Did you know Michael Jordan lost more elimination games than he won? Are you aware of any player's statistics in elimination scenarios? And would it matter to you anyway if said player had already established themselves by winning a title?

The fact of the matter is, elimination games seem like the most important thing until a player wins it all, and then at that point, they feel meaningless. That suggests it's a narrow, not-very-meaningful measure in the first place, especially when one looks at the context of NBA history.

For Devin Booker in particular, it feels inane to focus on three elimination playoff games rather than his overall track record. Elimination Book has been awful, but there's no statistic for the time he came back from Denver, down 0-2, and averaged 41.5 points on 79 percent shooting over the next two games to keep his team in the series. How do we remember the Game 6 dud, but not must-win scenarios in Games 3 and 4 to avoid an elimination Game 5 in Denver and keep the Suns hopes alive?

In just three postseasons, Booker is already 15th in franchise history in playoff wins. He's reached the NBA Finals, dropped a 40-point triple-double in the conference finals, notched back-to-back 40-balls in the Finals, scored the most points in any player's first playoff run in league history, bumped his averages up to 28-5-5 on .485/.392/.891 shooting splits in the postseason, and literally just came off one of the most impressive individual postseasons ever.

Focusing on 3-4 games where he's struggled with his back against the wall seems silly compared to all of that. The jury is still out on whether Devin Booker can be that guy in elimination games, but even if he's not...isn't pairing him with Kevin-Freaking-Durant a good way to compensate for that problem?