Mark McGwire is not a first basemen. He is a homerun hitter and that is it. Saying Mark McGwire is a good first basemen is like saying that Sammy Sosa is a good outfielder just because he can hit homeruns. His batting average is crap and given the fact that he drew a TOOOON of walks due to his massive power (which is ALL he has), his on base percentage isn't that impressive.
That's like saying Babe Ruth wasn't a right fielder he was just a home run hitter.
RBI is the most useless and overrated statistic in all of sports (it's basically a function of how good your are that is better determined by other statistics and the people on base in front of you) followed closely by fielding percentage and batting average in as far as their job in telling how good somebody played. Not to be mean but some of the people you compared him to is almost comical, let alone saying they were actually better. Mark McGwire did more than hit home runs. (As you yourself said he drew a lot of walks, something that is almost always looked past) Cecil Fielder is more of the fat guy that just hit a couple home runs for a few years. Plus you conveniently leave out all statistics that don't agree with your analysis like slugging percentage and you don't consider peek vs. life long padding the states years.
Mark McGwire stats (from baseballprospectus.com)
His lifetime OBP is .394 yet you also have to consider it you count full seasons past the age of 27 he had one year it was below .400 until his final year when he was pretty much washed up. His age 27 year it was .385. His top OBP years were .483, .470, .467, .441, .424, and even a shortened two years where he had around .420 combined. To be higher than that in your best years you need to enter Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds territory. How many of the people you mentioned match up, NONE, and he still had a higher OBP than all off them. John Olerud had one fluke year of .473 and one year where he was at .477 and besides that he barely scraped .400 or just ****** it a couple of times. He might be the most overrated person on that list mainly because he was also a slap hitter that couldn't generate much power and much of his OBP is tied up in batting average. Comparing Mark Grace to him is laughable (and I'm a Cubs fan) and so are most of the other people like Steve Garvey, Will Clark, Keith Hernandez, and pretty much everybody else. Pete Rose was an above average player that padded the states for a loooonng time. Even taking into account the offense of the steroid era (which a lot of the people on the list come from anyhow) it isn't close. Oh and did I mention even counting McGwire's early years where he didn't draw as many walk and his OBP was down he still beats everybody on the list.
Now we come to their power and slugging percentage. Do I even have to go though this to tell where the comparison is going to end up? :1orglaugh
Mark McGwire is .588 lifetime with his best years being .746, .752, .730, .697, .685, .684, .618.!!! Do you know how many people on your list compare to him?...NONE. The closest is probably Willie McCovey. He had two full years where he got over .600 with .656 and .612. To put that in comparison the next closest person on your list second best season in his entire career (and he played more years than McGwire also) is about as good as McGwire's eight best season! There is just no comparison. To get higher than that for any stretch of time you need to again enter the Babe Ruth/Barry Bonds stratosphere.
McGwire walk totals 1317. Highest person Rose with 1566 and about 10 more years playing time. Willie McCovey had 1345 and about 8 more years playing time. Nobody else is really close.
Home runs McGwire hit 583. People comparable on the list especially considering playing time...NONE.
Lifetime OPS of McGwire .982, and that's even counting his off years. People on the list comparable...NONE.
Advanced statistics of McGwire: lifetime EQA adjusted to balance across eras: .336. Next highest person Willie McCovey .318
Highest years of EQR (equivalent runs, basically runs that his performance would give the team the season by his being there adjusted and neutralized for teammates, opponents, and era played in)
McGwire: 162, 132, 132, 130, 131, 121
Best comparable person, Don Mattingly: 150, 143, 130, 116, 113, 100
The only thing McGwire has going against him performance wise is the fact he was a below average fielder although not as bad as some people think. The end result in whether a person is good at his position or is a good baseball player in general is how many runs he generates and how many he can keep from scoring combined. In that fact McGwire is ahead of all the others. Style doesn't make you win, and history has shown that dominating offensive performance with below average defense is almost always better than dominating defense with below average offense. Derek Jeter might be one of the worse, if not the worse defensive SS in history, especially when you take into account the time he has played. Most people worse would have been flushed out of the league limiting the damage they could do if they were that bad if not for that level of offensive production. I would still take him over Rey Ordonez in a heartbeat. I would take him over Ozzie Smith, and he is considered the best defensive player ever. He would end up making me win more. It's the same with McGwire and guys like Olerud. Who cares how a person either scores or prevents more runs than somebody else as long as they do it? The point of the game is winning.
