Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction. It is useless as a predictive tool, but this article was backwards looking. It just highlights the fact that the results have been unclutch. No one here would suggest clutch performance is a good metric to use when evaluating an individual player's expected future performance, but that doesn't mean you have to turn a completely blind eye to macro results that seem pretty consistent over the course of a decade. It is at least worth considering whether there are outside identifiable factors. I will agree that it is too easy to make excuses for repeated failures, though, so seeing something like this can be kind of irksome. Wow, 6.5 wins in 2004. And this only counts high-leverage plate appearances, right? It doesn't include the high leverage innings blown by the bullpen? Yeesh, that hurts. If it's useless a predictive tool, it is useless as retrospective tool too. It's a mental masturbation tool, if anything. The main reason why it's useless in this instance is that "clutch" isn't a team statistic any more than wins are a starting pitcher statistic. Their are other reasons too but I'm not wasting any more time with the nonsense. Two non sequitors in one post. Wow. Someone should look into this whole curse thing.