Somebody needs to explain what the "anti-closer" group (for lack of a better term) is actually advocating.
If they are advocating not using one pitcher to pitch the ninth, not limiting him to one inning, in other words, being more flexible in use of late inning relievers, I can buy that although I think it is a minor quibble. Managers like set roles for relievers and while flexibility is great, it doesn't warrant all this debate.
If the group is advocating that lesser pitchers finish close games, that's a more substantive dispute. It's hard for me to believe that such an astute group of fans want lesser pitchers throwing the late innings of very close games.
If it's a question of salary, well, at any position you hope to get a very good player cheaply. It may be that young relievers with great stuff should be relied on as late inning pitchers -- guys with dynamite stuff certainly can be effective pitching one inning. However, experience is always important so there's a balancing in choosing late inning pitchers as with any position.
So I guess I don't know what is being advocated here.
Otherwise put -- Reds lead by one in a key pennant drive game, eighth inning, starter is gassed, do you want Marshall and Chapman getting ready? Marshall and Broxton? Arredondo and Simon? Parra and Ondrusek? Lecure and Hoover? It doesn't matter?
Do people really believe it doesn't matter?