I think I kinda maybe get your point, but your example sucks. The '04 Yanks were below average pitching (ERA+ of 96, tied for 8th in the league), the '04 Sox were very good (116, 2nd in the AL). The Sox also had a very good bullpen, and it's not like the rest of their rotation was garbage, they got ~350 innings of league average to very good pitching from Arroyo & Wakefield.
And for the NL offensive side of the equation, here's the breakdown, '07-98 NLCS participants, league rank in OPS+, winner of the NL on the left: 6-15t 8-2 11t-3t 1-6 5t-12t 1-3 8t-13 4t-3 7t-1t 5-3
I think the Astros of recent years is the best example of this. Three ridiculously good pitchers and two mediocre-to-terrible ones (like Wandy). That type of team is better built for the postseason, because those bad ones won't pitch at all. The flipside is a team like Detroit (I think) that just has 5 pretty good pitchers, or the Cardinals, who had Carpenter and then a bunch of fairly-good guys. Same thing with the bullpen - Qualls/Wheeler/Lidge would pitch all the important postseason innings, so the other 3 guys didn't matter nearly as much. Much better postseason setup than having 6 decent guys.
If you never score a run, and they never score a run, then the game goes on into eternity. Beer will flow like a river, hot dogs become health food...the peanut guy gets elected President...dogs and cats living together...MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!! Unless it's the AL...then it gets called at 1:00am.
