No, I don't think we were a top 4 team, last year, at any point, even the end. For one thing, the Dodgers played the Giants, the two best teams, before the NLCS.
Adding Schwarber and the fine play by additions like Iggy, Shaw and, at times, the pen additions helped get us closer, but I still think TBR, TOR, NYY, CWS and HOU were better than us, last year- just in the AL.
Although I do not think the playoffs are a total crapshoot, like many fans do, there is some luck involved on who advances.
Having a better team increases your odds of winning, and do not have some unique point of view or philosophy, as Bellhorn thinks I have, to think having a strong rotation greatly improves your odds. The whole "on paper" thing is not something I quite understand. Framber Valdez was not a recognized ace, last year, but he looked like one to us. I fully understand, we could have a solid rotation, by the end of the year without making any flashy, glitzy or under the radar rotation additions, but I'd feel a lot more confident, if we had some more known solid starters, so if that means "on paper," I'm not sure that makes me all that "different" from the way many fans feel about their team's chances.
It's not like history is working against my idea.
We had Pedro and added Schiiling> ring
We had Schilling and added Beckett> ring
We had Lester and added Lackey> ring
We had Price and added Sale> ring.
These are not coincidences. Does this "ring" the bell?
We had Eovaldi and added Pivetta.
Or, we had Sale and added Eovaldi.
Maybe, it does, but I think we need to do better to have a strong chance at winning, this year. Can Houck and or Whitlock fill that role? Possibly. I'm not writing off this year. Plus, maybe Sale does fill that role. Hell, maybe Paxton does. It's not like our rotation is hopeless.
I just wish it was better.