That had to be one of the worst articles I have ever read.
First, his statement comparing starters pitch numbers vs. bullpen pitch numbers is simply ignorant. You can't compare the two. Just ask yourself this, why don't bullpen pitchers throw 100+ innings?
70+ innings out of the bullpen is a heavy workload on any pitcher.
Second, control is an issue with Chapman because he has not thrown more than 2 innings in MLB? WTF? Control was vastly improved last year, and his BB/9 rate was above average (above as in better than average). So not only is his point wrong, but the point he hasn't pitched more than 2 innings makes no sense. It wasn't his job to pitch more than 2 innings.
Third, pitches has been mentioned here. This should be his key to starting, although there have been successful pitchers in the past who have done well starting with only 2 real pitches as long as they are really good pitches.
Fourth, closers are simply not that important. Everybody with half a brain knows that. There is a reason the greatest closer in the history of baseball was only the 16th highest paid pitcher last year, and money being spent on closers is falling even further behind starters.
Like I have stated over and over again, no team ever keeps a guy in the bullpen unless they know he can't start (very limited exceptions and that normally deals with teams that have 5 top of the line starters which the Reds don't have). The Reds need to find out if Chapman can start. People here saying the Reds should do the opposite simply need to look at David Price and Adam Wainwright. Should the Rays and the Cards kept those guys in the bullpen? Same situation. Both teams were pennant contenders, both of those guys played well in the bullpen when they fist came up to the majors, and both were supposed to be starters before being forced into bullpen work short term.