The Sox were a very good team. We played them pretty well.
With a bit of luck, the Astros would have won.
The problem with saying that the Astros were mediocre is that it's too simple, and it was too simple back in May. The Astros pitching was excellent, both in the bullpen and for starters. It fell apart a bit in the world series, but it was much better than mediocre.
The Astros defense was very good as well. Up the center, Taveras, Everett, Ausmus, was very strong. Berkman is a very good first baseman, and Berkman/Burke in left and Biggio at second were at least good major leaguers. Ensberg and Lane were better than average defenders. All-in-all, defense was a good bit better than mediocre. Lamb was weak, but he had his moments.
The real complaint about the team was offense, and when Ensberg stopped hitting it showed. That happens, but long-term it probably doesn't mean much.
What really made this team, in my mind, was how the team seemed to hold together. It was great pitching, good defense, sometimes bad offense, but a great team. You had just the right kind of leadership, just the right amount of relaxed fire, from Clemens and Berkman and Ausmus, and you had very good managing from Garner. It was something that baseball doesn't require to win, but that sometimes can win in baseball, and it's what made saying the team as a whole is mediocre tough to agree with. It had offensive holes, sure, but it wasn't mediocre: in fact it was a great team, despite its offensive problems.
