I'm an NL fan sick and tired of hearing my league referred to as the JV league, or AAAA league.  I think it's shortsighted when people say that X player survived the AL east - of course he can take on the (...wait for it...) "weaker" NL.  Maybe there's something to that for pitchers, but it's been trumped up as more than it is.  Trust me, the hitters in the NL know when to swing just like the titans of the AL do.

Why is it that smarmy AL fans talk about the winner of their league as the best team in baseball?  Is it the recent history of the World Series?  Since 2000, five of the eight teams that have won it have been AL teams.  So what? Is it the recent record in All-Star games?  I don't want to look it up, but we all know the AL has some silly streak of dominance going on.  Or the age old argument: the AL has better players?

Some might say the best measure of the quality of each league is the cream.  Let's take a look at the best team in each league:

NL - The Mets are probably the majority shareholder of the NL after the Santana trade.  They have superstars on the left side of their infield, an all-star in center, a candidate for a bounce-back year at first.  The rest of their starting squad features players of varying abilities, but this is a strong unit as a whole thanks to the top and middle of their lineup.

Their rotation is looking very strong with Santana-Pedro-Maine-Perez-El Duque.  Whether or not the rotation matches up man for man with the Red Sox is not the issue.  The point is that an argument could be made for either.

AL - Have to go with the Red Sox, reigning champs.  Their lineup consists of ... do I have to say it?  Manny and Papi, Drew, Ellsbury, Youk, Pedroia, Lowell, Varitek, Lugo.  The most feared 3-4 hitters in the entire league surrounded by a capable supporting cast.  I personally think Lowell has had his last good year and that Varitek is running out of sand, but Drew should be better, and Ellsbury will be good, and Youkilis will be reliable.

On to the rotation - very strong 1-6.  There's no point in going into it in any kind of detail, because I'm not trying to debate the Mets' rotation against the Red Sox', I'm just trying to make a point that the debate could be made.

On the whole: these two teams are very similar in overall talent level to me, with the slight edge going to the Red Sox because of recent successes.  But on the other hand, how is the Mets' 2007 that much different than the Sox' 2006?

Let's take a look at the next tier.  This is where I think the AL gets much of its laudations.  While the NL has some very strong teams in the next tier, the AL has several that are just a nose or two stronger than their counterparts.

NL - let's go with Arizona, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Colorado.

Arizona - Owners of perhaps the best 1-2 punch in the game with Webb and Haren.  If RJ holds up, they'll have the best 1-2-3.  They were a ninety win playoff team last year that figures to get better.  Not only that, but they won their ninety in one of the toughest divisions in baseball.  No team rolls over in the NL west.

Philadelphia - the Detroit of the NL.  Rollins, Utley, Howard, Burrell.  That's a lot of firepower for a small stadium.

Chicago - Nice blend of pitching and hitting.  The Cleveland of the NL?

Colorado - Reigning National League champs.   Blake Street Bombers with pitching and defense.

AL - let's go with Detroit, Cleveland, NYY, and Anaheim

Detroit - Best lineup in the game?  I was tempted to choose Detroit as the best team in the AL, but I figured it had to go to Boston until they prove otherwise.  Nonetheless, the addition of Cabrera to an already powerful lineup should have the same effect that Santana will have on the Mets' pitching staff.  In addition, the Tigers have some very good pitching to back that offense up.

Cleveland - Detroit and Cleveland for the next several years should make the AL central something like the AL East has been.

Yankees - Closer to the Angels than the Indians, I think, but I've been wrong before.

Anaheim - Very deep rotation.  Very colorful outfield.  The probable leaders of the weakest division in the AL, the only division that challenges the NL Central for that dishonor.  Good team, important year.  Are they rising or falling?

That top echelon in most peoples' minds separates the AL from the NL.  Any of Detroit, Cleveland, the Yankees, or (possibly, but probably not) the Angels, might be able to step into the NL and challenge the Mets for supremacy.  However, if any of Arizona, Philly, Chicago, or Colorado joined the American League, though they would be a top-tier team, no one would automatically lump them in to run with "the best".

Beyond that, you have the competitors.  Any of these teams may challenge for their division this coming season, and several of them will be in wild card contention late in the year.  This is where the National League earns its keep.

LAD, SD, Mil, Atl, Cin, St.L, SF

Vs.

Sea, Tor, Min, TB, Texas, KC

Any of these first five teams in the NL could have a great season and jump into the next tier, whereas in the AL I could see only Seattle or Toronto.  Tampa Bay, Texas, and Kansas City are probably two years or more down the line.  Last year, these three teams were punching bags.

(For reference, the remaining teams, "the dregs" line up as follows: Hou, Was, Pit, Fla and Chi, Oakland, and Baltimore.  Don't get too excited or pissy about placement.  This is one man's very unscientific opinion.)

I'm running really (really, really) long here and I don't have anything very convincing to back it up, and I apologize for that, but I don't think there's anything very convincing that supports the fact that the AL is better than the NL, unless you're rabid for overanalyzing all star game victories and interleague play.  As for World Series victories, well, the Cards won two years ago, the Chi Sox won three years ago, the Marlins won five years ago, and a very different Diamondbacks team won seven years ago.

There's a lot of rising and falling in baseball, and the standings at the end of this season will undoubtedly be quite surprising.  Any team could break loose and any team could falter, and what happens could significantly alter the perception of who is the better league.  I just can't stand it when someone starts talking about the "weaker NL" as if "weaker" is part of its name, like it's been that way for a long time now, and it will continue to be that way.  It just conveys a myopic view of baseball.

Maybe the American League is as a whole a tad bit in front, but the only place I think that's clear is in the league's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best teams, admittedly a little bit better-rounded than the NL counterparts.  After that, the leagues look fairly well-matched to me, and the argument could be made that the NL is the deeper league.