no the difference here is micro vs macro. If you choose to look at cumulative stats to tell you how clutch a player is then you are fooling yourself. A "clutch" situation vs. cardinals and the same situation vs the nationals is, inevitably not the same. Arguably there is nothing clutch about even a grandslam vs the nationals of the past 5 years. Nor is a clutch situation in the playoffs the same as in the regular season. if a player is a decent hitter than over a season or tenure with a team the law of averages weighs out in his favor but it hides the fact that there are possibly smaller trends that have occurred or are recurring. maybe against a team or a particular type of pitcher or key situation. I'm not trying to look at the bigger picture of what he has been as a player. for the most part he has been pretty good. I'm looking at the high pressure situations he has had as a cub. when the pressure was greatest for the team and for him as a run producer. The 07,08 playoffs are obvious, the 04 collapse too, this year he is no where to be found early now he starts hitting after the pressure is off, etc. I could drag this out for a long time but I'll just focus on the bolded. So there is nothing clutch about playing well against a team like the Nationals? Do those wins not count towards the playoff race? Beating the Cardinals is fantastic especially when they're fighting the Cubs for a playoff spot, but the games against the other teams are just as significant. Also, I have never in my life seen someone ever get mad at a player for batting .545 in a series. That's like being given a Lamborghini and crying that it's yellow and not red.