Apparently, there's no possibility of the Red Sox being mediocre offensively...

Nick Cafardo:

Baseball people who have watched the Sox still don’t know what to make of Cameron, Beltre, and Ortiz, the consensus being they’ll be the keys to whether the Sox are a really good offensive team or whether they will need every bit of their pitching and defense to keep them in games.

Isn't it possible, Nick, that there's actually some middle ground between those two extremes? If they "need every bit of their pitching and defense to keep them in games," wouldn't that imply that they were a really bad offensive team? Surely there's room for a team to be somewhere between "really good" and "really bad," right? Like, maybe, "pretty good" or "OK" or "not bad" or "good" or "mediocre?" Do they have to be "really good" or "really bad?"

Or do just have nothing to say so you have to say it in meaningless extremisms?

Just curious...