The 2004 Red Sox Weren't Even Close

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

maybe the NL Central had three good teams, but the reality is not what was on paper. The Cubs had an aging slugger having a crap year (and who unfortunately seems to be on his way to LA for Shawn Green who, mark my words here, will hit 50-60 homers in the Friendly Confines next year if he is traded), and signed an old spot pitcher in the off-season. The Astros would have been good if their front line pitching signing hadn't gone down for the year. The Cardinals were best summed up by an article in SI, which said that their staff was a group of journeymen that relied on the big boppers in the lineup to win with big output. As we have seen time and time again, that formula may grind out wins over the long haul against teams with no pitching but can be death in a series if the other side's pitching shuts down the big hitters.

I also take issue with rating the NL Central above the AL East or the AL West on the raw number of decent teams alone. Three Mothras (NL Central) don't add up to two Godzillas (AL East). It takes a hell of a lot more to win the East than to win anywhere else. The AL West is at least as good as the NL Central; I watched Anaheim (Cardinals), Oakland (Astros) and Texas (Cubs) all year out here and they are the equivalents of the NL Central's top three. Anaheim in particular scared the crap out of all us AL East fans in '04.