How good was Mark McGwire when he played?

Question

i never got a chance to watch him play but i really like him now but im wondering how good was he when he was in his prime years? like was he the most exciting player to watch and was he one of the best players?


also how would you rank the 4 main guys from the steroid era from best to worst? these are the guys. barry bonds,rafael palmeiro, mark mcgwire, and sammy sosa.

Answer 1

He was pretty good, when he wasn't injured, which was often.
At least when he was in Oakland. I didn't find him very exciting. He could hit the ball a long way, but he was no Bonds. Strawberry was an awesome longball hitter, Will Clark had one of the sweetest swings ever, for a few years there, Kevin Mitchell could hit home runs at will. I'd probably rank Canseco over Mac, because he had speed, too. But he also missed a lot of games.

Ranking those 4, in order?
Bonds way above the rest
Palmeiro
Sosa
McGwire, because Sosa didn't miss so many games in the middle of his career.

Answer 2

best to last
1:Barry Bonds
2:Sammy Sosa
3:Mark Mcgwire
4:Rafael Palmero he really sucked
1986 Oak 18 53 10 10 1 0 3 9 4 18 0 1 .189 .259 .377 .636
1987 Oak 151 557 97 161 28 4 49 118 71 131 1 1 .289 .370 .618 .988
1988 Oak 155 550 87 143 22 1 32 99 76 117 0 0 .260 .352 .478 .830
1989 Oak 143 490 74 113 17 0 33 95 83 94 1 1 .231 .339 .467 .806
1990 Oak 156 523 87 123 16 0 39 108 110 116 2 1 .235 .370 .489 .859
1991 Oak 154 483 62 97 22 0 22 75 93 116 2 1 .201 .330 .383 .713
1992 Oak 139 467 87 125 22 0 42 104 90 105 0 1 .268 .385 .585 .970
1993 Oak 27 84 16 28 6 0 9 24 21 19 0 1 .333 .467 .726 1.193
1994 Oak 47 135 26 34 3 0 9 25 37 40 0 0 .252 .413 .474 .887
1995 Oak 104 317 75 87 13 0 39 90 88 77 1 1 .274 .441 .685 1.126
1996 Oak 130 423 104 132 21 0 52 113 116 112 0 0 .312 .467 .730 1.197
1997 Oak 105 366 48 104 24 0 34 81 58 98 1 0 .284 .383 .628 1.011
1997 StL 51 174 38 44 3 0 24 42 43 61 2 0 .253 .411 .684 1.095
1998 StL 155 509 130 152 21 0 70 147 162 155 1 0 .299 .470 .752 1.222
1999 StL 153 521 118 145 21 1 65 147 133 141 0 0 .278 .424 .697 1.121
2000 StL 89 236 60 72 8 0 32 73 76 78 1 0 .305 .483 .746 1.229
2001 StL 97 299 48 56 4 0 29 64 56 118 0 0 .187 .316 .492 .808
Total -- 1874 6187 1167 1626 252 6 583 1414 1317 1596 12 8 .263 .394 .588 .982

Answer 3

he was awesome! He hit about 70 some homers in a season. I would rank the best players like this 1. Barry Bonds 2.Sammy Sosa 3.Mark McGwire 4. Rafael Palmeiro

Answer 4

Mark McGwire was fun to watch. He hit home runs at an alarming rate.

Sammy Sosa had to be the best from those 4, though. 60 home runs in 3 seasons?!

Answer 5

short and simple, he was awesome he won rookie of the year and had 50 home runs that season he had canseco as a bash brother even though he may have done androstene (not steroids) him and sosa brought baseball fans back when they were in the chase for the home run record so despite any bad talk people say he was still an amazing player and deserves to be in the hall of fame

Answer 6

You will see two different descriptions applied to McGwire; realize that both of these are wrong and made by monumentally stupid people.

One is "he was one-dimensional". Mac provided enormous power AND fantastic on-base ability; to provide both in league-leading amounts (and he did) is quite rare, and teams tend to pay very generously to obtain such players. Like McGwire. Anyone who claims Mac was 1D needs to define, with examples, just what constitutes a 2D player. (For extra fun, ask them to explain how home runs are bad, or what more McGwire should have done, like hit more singles. Keep them away from flammable materials, because their heads will spark with the effort of thought.)

Two, he was "Dave Kingman Lite". Kong couldn't take a walk when spotted a 3-0 count; he swung for the fences every time. There's room for that sort of player, but there's much more room for a player like McGwire, who gladly took the walks. Simply compare their career on-base percentages:
Mac .394
Kong .302
Ouch.

Now, pointing out the massive misconceptions in either of these descriptions to the stupid people won't make any difference, because they have already chosen not to see. You argue with them, not for their benefit, but for that of the undecided observers who still have a chance to learn. Save them from such idiocy.

Answer 7

He was extremely boring to watch. Perhaps the most overrated player in the history of the universe. He was one dimensional. A large chunk of his hits were home runs because that's all he knew how to do. Yes he hit 583 home runs but he was mediocre. In his career he batted .263 and only had 1626 hits which i think is pathetic! I hope never makes the hall of fame!

Answer 8

good for Pudge, he's genuinely genuine. this is merely no longer honest to the final public of participant taking part in the sport how this is meant to be performed. I hate that crap that steroid customers throw out - "i became below lots rigidity." human beings face rigidity daily. there have been hundreds of moments in my existence as quickly as I even have been below rigidity to do something each and every person else became doing, and particularly than try this component that should have replaced my existence for the greater severe, I held my head up intense and did no longer enable others' stupid habit effect me. i'm happy Fisk spoke out approximately this and suggested what each and every person else is questioning of their heads - McGwire is the two delusional or an entire liar for questioning steroids did no longer help him hit greater homeruns.

Answer 9

great power hitter, but horrible for strikeouts and average. sammy was a better all around hitter at the time, but no one touches barry. better power than mac, and he can hit for contact. plus even at mid 40's he's still stealing bases, something mac couldn't do even in his 20's.

Answer 10

he was boring and small and average before steriods

1 bond
2 big mac
3 giambi
4 raffy
5 brett boone
6 sosa