You know maybe I'm starting to understand your point.
On the surface your question is easy to answer: clock uncertainties are a thing, and are very analogous to space-position uncertainty. Also time-of-arrival is a question that you can pretty much always ask, and it's precisely the "uncertain t for given x" to the usual "uncertain x for given t". Conversely you don't have the standard deviation of "just space": as universal as it is, Delta x is always incarnated as some well-defined space variable in each setting.
But it's also true that clock and time-of-arrival uncertainties are not what's usually meant in the time-energy relation: in general it's a mean duration (rather than a standard deviation) linked to a spectral width. And it does make sense, because quantum mechanics are all about probability densities in space propagating in a well-parametrized time. So Fourier on space=>uncertainties while Fourier on time=>actual duration/frequency. And if you go deeper than that, I'm used to thinking of the uncertainty principle in terms of Fourier because of the usual Delta x Delta p > 1/2 formulation, but for the full-blown Heisenberg-y formula you need operators, and you don't have a generally defined time operator of the standard QM because of Pauli's argument.
But that's a whole thing in and of itself, because now I'm wondering about time of arrival operators, quantum clocks and their observables, and is Pauli's argument as solid as that since people do be defining time operators now and it's quite fun, so thanks for that.
Through the power of (A=>B) not implying (B=>A)