Originally Posted by RedsAndCatsFan
I never really like these lists as anything more than a conversation piece to pass time in the offseason. The Reds are too low in the sense that their rotation will and has carry/carried the team in the past. I think the Cardinals are just about right because they have a lot of above average starters. I normally don't put too much weight in regression season to season like a lot of people on this forum seem to. I especially don't put weight in it when it comes to young players regressing on teams with strong organizations. The Cardinals have proven to be able to avoid it in the past and I have no reason to think they won't this year. Now that the Reds have gotten Dusty out of here, I think they can be a team with a strong enough coaching staff to avoid regression to. A completely healthy Reds starting 5 is simply better than the Cardinals starting 5. My worry is that the Cardinals have a 6,7,8 that aren't much different than their 4 or 5 and I'm not sure the Reds have that.
First of all, I'm curious as to who comprises your two teams hypothetically healthy starting 5s.
Secondly - I'm really curious to see some data behind your assertion that they're [the Reds] "simply better".