Well the closer-by-committee thing throws intangibles out the window. Intangibles are more important than throwing 99 mph fastballs for closers. The idiocy of it is that it requires having 4-5 really good relievers. How many teams have that many really good relievers? If you have an average bullpen, a closer by committee is the worst possible idea you can have. Sabermatricians usually argue that there is no clutch factor, iirc. However I think there are plenty of stats (how ironic, stats that go against sabermatricians) that would point out that many players do perform better or worse in clutch situations compared to "normal" situations.
Rangers pitchers suck because their confidence is shot pitching in their stadium. Not unlike Rockies pitchers. The Rangers pitchers who leave, usually seem to do fine.
Not that Urbina was an elite closer, but Boston would have been much better off with him. Urbina managed to not get in the way of the Marlins winning the title. IMO, the committee thing is used more because some guys (like Epstein) did/do not feel that a closer should be paid premium money, if they can get cheap setup guys to fill the same role as them. I don't think you can compare Embree/Williamson/etc to an Eric Gagne or John Smoltz as far as effectiveness goes. Some guys don't think it's worth paying a top closer 3-4 million extra to win 10 or so extra games a year.
One small ball fact to ponder is the importance of scoring the 1st run. I say this because many people do not like seeing a team sac bunt in the early to middle innings, if it means scoring the first run. Fact is that intangibly-speaking, pitchers are able to relax and pitch better (imo) with a lead. It is arguable.
