CONTEXT. Numbers are meaningless without CONTEXT.
All stats are tools for the observer, but like any tool you have to use them correctly. Just regurgitating numbers and saying "this means that" contributes nothing to the discussion. You need to have an understanding of both the mechanics of that stat AND the mechanics of the source in order to draw any valid conclusions.
The problem with the clutch argument is there's no reference point. No starting point, nothing to compare it to. Is a 20% increase in scoring during the playoffs enough to consider a player clutch? Is a 10% increase in Game 7 production clutch? Is a 15% increase in GWG rate clutch? How many overtime goals do you need to be clutch? What about when the game is tied, is producing in that situation clutch? Are SCF performances more clutch than ECF of ECQF performances?
On the surface it makes sense - some players consistently exceed expectations in high-stakes situations, while some players consistently fail to meet expectations in similar situations. But without defining the parameters it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. Until someone decides what the bar is, everyone is just going to argue about semantics.
A player may produce at the same rate, yet more of his points are collected in OT or elimination games. Does that make him clutch? Some say yes, some say no. This area, as it is right now, is too subjective to be defined or proven by stats. What everyone considers clutch is difference.