Just a note on relievers, I agree that there is value to be found in giving more credence to the bullpen. This is largely the case because few cappers take/have the time to delve into the stat lines of another 5 pitchers for every game.
Referencing Laker, starting pitchers are still more important to their teams because they use up more innings, and when capping every inning is largely weighted equally, the 4th is as important as the 9th to the overall score. So when you have a tangible advantage with a starting pitcher you are getting a 6 or 7 inning advantage over the opponent, which is obviously more valuable than the 1-2 inning advantage a top setup man and closer can provide.
The other point is that many major league managers do not do a good job utilizing their elite closers in non-save opportunity situations. Most closers rarely see the field unless they are leading, even though there is more value throwing Gagne out there in a tie game then when the Dodgers are up 3. Many closers actually prefer this strategy, because it maximizes their save opportunities which many times lead to triggered contract incentives or better future contracts.
The point here is that when capping a team with a great closer it is important to remember that his appearance in the game is dependent on all the preceding pitchers; a bullpen with a top closer and setup man loses alot of value when they never get to the see the field. So it behooves us to weigh the middle relievers as much as the closers, if not more so. Not saying that's not being proposed here, just throwing out why a Scot Shields might deserve as much attention as a Francisco Rodriguez.
