I usually find that the only times the stat comes off as “screwy” are when people mix up clutch with true talent. We seem to have become a fandom that treats clutch performance as the ultimate in performance quality, and we shouldn’t necessarily. It’s definitely an interesting number to know, but clutch should be treated on a more personal basis like this stat suggests: does this player raise his game, regardless of how high said game already is, in high leverage situations?

If not, he isn’t clutch. He can still be an awesome player, full of talent, but he lacks clutch performance.

If a player is a .350 overall hitter and he hits .333 in clutch situations, I’m not sure how you could possibly call that player clutch. Is he good in clutch situations? Yes, but not as good as he usually is, giving him less “value” than he should have.

If you hit all your home runs in low leverage situations and none of them in high leverage, you will be punished by clutch. I don’t particularly have a problem with this. If you had a player that was good all the time and performed exactly the same in all situations, he wouldn’t be clutch.

Overall, I’m not sure why there are so many objections. Is it because the players who you think of as clutch are actually not clutch? Is it a matter of perception versus what the stats are telling you?