What's new
By:

Who Better Rudy or Mark Eaton?

Who Better?

  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
sip said:
The problem when you try comparing blocks from one era to the other is that the game has changed completely. In Eaton's era the game was far more condensed and led to so many more shot block opportunities. Put Rudy in that era and he is definitely in that 4 block a game range.
Click to expand...
I agree, although Mark's blocks per game were even unique for that era. The year he averaged 5.6 blocks per game, the next closest was Hakeem who averaged 2.7. There were others who had very high block per game seasons, but none who were as consistent as Eaton.
 
sip said:
The 80's and 90's would have been the perfect era for Rudy. This era he has still been great but he would have been far more dominant as a shot blocker in Eaton's era.
Click to expand...
In some ways I agree. But I think he would get bullied pretty bad in that era. Dude's we're huge in the post back then and beat the **** out of each other. Rudy is not built for that and struggled at times when the game was too physical.
 
Ron Mexico said:
In some ways I agree. But I think he would get bullied pretty bad in that era. Dude's we're huge in the post back then and beat the **** out of each other. Rudy is not built for that and struggled at times when the game was too physical.
Click to expand...
Who were these guys that were huge in the post? There were more post scorers back then but I can't think of anyone that was overly physical other than Shaq. Also remember that we talking about Rudy defensively not offensively. I don't think we are seeing Rudy posting up much in that era.
 
sip said:
Who were these guys that were huge in the post? There were more post scorers back then but I can't think of anyone that was overly physical other than Shaq. Also remember that we talking about Rudy defensively not offensively. I don't think we are seeing Rudy posting up much in that era.
Click to expand...
Barkley Malone Kemp Oakley Ewing Robinson Rodmen Worthy ...
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I'm really only old enough to remember the end of Mark Eaton's career, and by that time he was in his mid 30's and just a lumbering big who mostly took up space. When I've seen highlights of his early career it really surprised me how quick and agile he looked. He played and thrived in the early 80's era of the Jazz which was very fast paced. Mark started his career at age 26, so we only had 3-4 years of prime Mark Eaton and in those years he was a truly dominant defensive force, averaging 4.3, 5.6, 4.6, and 4.1 blocks per game (Rudy's highest is 2.6). His advanced defensive stats were pretty ridiculous as well with 6 seasons with a DBPM over 3 (Rudy's highest DBPM was 2.8). Mark's total defensive win shares are 48.0 vs Rudy's 41.5. I think there is a decent argument to be made that Mark was a better defensive player than Rudy, although I prefer what Cy said in that they were both perfectly suited for their eras.

Offensively it's not even close. Mark Eaton was a huge liability on offense, whereas Rudy was a great offensive player despite the hate. As big as Mark Eaton was he had a career fg% of 45.8% compared to Rudy's 65.4%. Rudy has a total offensive win shares of 52.9 compared to Mark's -3.2.
Click to expand...

Lol a eatons field goal percentage. I had no idea it would be that bad. Good info
 
Sardines said:
Barkley Malone Kemp Oakley Ewing Robinson Rodmen Worthy ...
Click to expand...
Kareem, Parish, Gillmore, Sampson, Divac, Laimbeer. The list goes on.

The center position was much more physical with just plain big dudes in there during the 80's and 90's. I still think Rudy would have adapted and his skills and talent would still make him a real impact player.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I agree, although Mark's blocks per game were even unique for that era. The year he averaged 5.6 blocks per game, the next closest was Hakeem who averaged 2.7. There were others who had very high block per game seasons, but none who were as consistent as Eaton.
Click to expand...
Mark definitely played in the right era, I think he would be unplayable almost in todays game.
 
sip said:
Who were these guys that were huge in the post? There were more post scorers back then but I can't think of anyone that was overly physical other than Shaq. Also remember that we talking about Rudy defensively not offensively. I don't think we are seeing Rudy posting up much in that era.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Rudy on defense. He hasn't handle physical guys well. I think he would get pushed around in that era on defense when guys are slamming into him over and over. It's not his strength. I think Rudy played in the best era for him on defense.
 
Sardines said:
Barkley Malone Kemp Oakley Ewing Robinson Rodmen Worthy ...
Click to expand...
You didn't actually follow that era did you? You just listed a bunch of guys that aren't huge and in many cases pf's. I'm not sure why you mentioned Rodman at all since he clearly wasn't an offensive threat at all.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Kareem, Parish, Gillmore, Sampson, Divac, Laimbeer. The list goes on.

The center position was much more physical with just plain big dudes in there during the 80's and 90's. I still think Rudy would have adapted and his skills and talent would still make him a real impact player.
Click to expand...
Once again those aren't huge dudes like Ron Mexico mentioned. They were skilled but none of those guys were overly physical where they are backing you down like with Shaq. The great players are always going to get theirs but Gobert would definitely make it more difficult for them with his length and athleticism. Some of you make it sound like that era was filled with a ton of 7 foot 280 pound brutes but the reality is that most of the centers in that era weighed between 230 and 250 pounds. There is no reason to believe that Rudy would be any less impactful than a guy like Mutombo in that era. The one thing that is for sure about that era is Rudy would have significantly more shot blocking opportunities with the game being more post oriented.
 
sip said:
You didn't actually follow that era did you? You just listed a bunch of guys that aren't huge and in many cases pf's. I'm not sure why you mentioned Rodman at all since he clearly wasn't an offensive threat at all.
Click to expand...
Because he was a physical player who would have battled Gobert for rebounds.

Malone knocked Robinson out cold and Robinson wasn't soft at all. The famed "Gobert effect" that discouraged people even trying to score in the paint when he was in was one thing, the "Karl Malone will actually try to murder you" effect was something else entirely.

I was listing physical players that Rudy would have to contend against and who's physicality would have caused him problems. I listed a couple guys that I can't really say how physical they got, but were bigger stronger players than you usually see nowadays.
 
Gobert had a much bigger impact on the game than Mark Eaton. And he was better in relation to his peers (top 20 player for 4-5 years). Gobert is simply better.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Russell had leadership and intangibles that Rudy doesn't seem to have.
Click to expand...
Bill was also on the Boston Celtics on a loaded team and was the perfect player for his era and still couldnt shoot above 44% from the field. It's easy to have leadership when you are leading an elite crew who are head and shoulders above the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top