^ I'll take LeMaster's and Sparks ability to shoot ball from anywhere on the court over Rondos superior talents which in include Jumping, running, dribbling. If you can't shoot a simple free throw or wide open 15' jumper you should not be playing the game.

 

Rondo is highly overated!

 

It's amazing to me how ignorant some people can be about how good (or bad) some players are just because they shoot FTs poorly. Rondo is a top-5 point guard when healthy. Led the league in assists 2 of the last 3 seasons; easily the best rebounding point guard in the game.

 

Rondo is shooting .394 from 3-land this year (small sample, but 13-33). Guess what Steph Curry is shooting from 3-land? Yup ... .394. Shaq couldn't shoot FTs either, but has four rings on his left hand.

 

There's a reason Rondo is in his ninth year in the league, and LeMaster/Sparks never, ever, ever, ever, ever played .... justsayin

"Great" is the subjective word on this thread.

 

Since both Patrick Sparks and Preston LeMaster have been mentioned, are we saying they were not "great"? Both were certainly "great" high school players. Patrick Sparks was a starter and major contributor at a top 10 college basketball program. Does that not qualify him as "great"?

 

Remember, this thread is under the Kentucky High School Basketball heading. How many young Kentucky kids would have loved to have had no talent like Patrick Sparks?

 

To me "great" does not necessarily only refer to sure shot NBA Hall of Fame players.

I like these 4 plus I will add size, you can't teach it and life on the ball court is a lot easier with it.

 

I disagree with you on size. This thread is about being a great High School player. A great Guard in HS does not have to be big. Quick, good shot, passes the ball, runs the team, handles the rock, plays good defense--those attributes make for a good HS guard.

I disagree with you on size. This thread is about being a great High School player. A great Guard in HS does not have to be big. Quick, good shot, passes the ball, runs the team, handles the rock, plays good defense--those attributes make for a good HS guard.

 

Sorry, but no where in the thread title does it say high school. And I will add without size you really need the other 4 even more.

Talent. Next question...

Agree. Lots of talent wasted out there. However you can have all the desire, work ethic, attitude etc but if your just not talented wont matter. All that might make you a good player but to be great you need talent.

Sorry, but no where in the thread title does it say high school. And I will add without size you really need the other 4 even more.

 

FYI, You are currently in the "Ky. Boys basketball (high school)" Forum!

 

Pretty much indicates to me that it is about being a great HS player.

Size matters in the next level.

Athletic ability, first and foremost. You can practice all you want and will not be able to play if you are not talented.

Coachability, I've seen a lot of great athletes that just did not 'get it'.

Practice, not just in the gym but outside of the gym. When I say practice, that means you just don't show up to practice, you practice hard.

Good team mates. They make you a better player as well. You learn from them and feed off of them.

1. DEDICATION

2. DESIRE

3. HEART

4. KNOWLEDGE OF THE GAME

 

True for any sport. For basketball I would add "SKILL"

Ok, "talent" is a given to be great at any level of basketball relative to the competition. But many players have "talent" but yet are never great, so what separates them?

 

Drive/desire. You have to have the drive to always want to be better and the desire to make it happen.

 

Heart. No matter how good you are, you are never to good to dive on the floor and do the "dirty work".

 

Dedication to the craft. You can have drive, desire and heart in abundance, but if you are surviving on a diet of beer and doughnuts (as an example) then you probably don't have the dedication needed.

 

Coachability. Have to realize you don't know everything and there are some that can teach you a great amount if you will listen and soak it in.

 

Intelligence (at least in relation to the game). You can have all the drive and physical tools in the world, but if you can't grasp what is being taught you and can't understand the nuances' of the game, then you can never be what you could be.

4 words... "You must want to"

 

If a kid doesn't want to be a top player then he will never be. Once the talent is there, it all becomes mental.

Ok, "talent" is a given to be great at any level of basketball relative to the competition. But many players have "talent" but yet are never great, so what separates them?

 

Drive/desire. You have to have the drive to always want to be better and the desire to make it happen.

 

Heart. No matter how good you are, you are never to good to dive on the floor and do the "dirty work".

 

Dedication to the craft. You can have drive, desire and heart in abundance, but if you are surviving on a diet of beer and doughnuts (as an example) then you probably don't have the dedication needed.

 

Coachability. Have to realize you don't know everything and there are some that can teach you a great amount if you will listen and soak it in.

 

Intelligence (at least in relation to the game). You can have all the drive and physical tools in the world, but if you can't grasp what is being taught you and can't understand the nuances' of the game, then you can never be what you could be.

 

Ok, flipside. How many players without one great physical attribute developed into a great player. Not a good player, but a 1st team All State type.

Ok, flipside. How many players without one great physical attribute developed into a great player. Not a good player, but a 1st team All State type.

 

Hummm...I don't know that I can answer that question, mostly being I'm not sure what the term "great physical attribute" is in reference to the post or in comparison to what others would consider a "great physical attribute", but I will try.

 

Let's take a very easy, but notable example. Larry Bird. It could be argued that Larry Bird had no "great" physical attribute, comparably to his level of competition. He wasn't fast, wasn't quick, not an explosive jumper...outside of being tall in relation to the general public, it could be argued he really didn't have any one great thing.

 

What did he have? Well he had all of the things I listed, and had them in spades. He also got the most out of the physical attributes he had. And the sum of his parts were greater than the individual pieces. How often does that happen? Probably not a whole lot.

Hummm...I don't know that I can answer that question, mostly being I'm not sure what the term "great physical attribute" is in reference to the post or in comparison to what others would consider a "great physical attribute", but I wil

Let's take a very easy, but notable example. Larry Bird. It could be argued that Larry Bird had no "great" physical attribute, comparably to his level of competition. He wasn't fast, wasn't quick, not an explosive jumper...outside of being tall in relation to the general public, it could be argued he really didn't have any one great thing.

 

What did he have? Well he had all of the things I listed, and had them in spades. He also got the most out of the physical attributes he had. And the sum of his parts were greater than the individual pieces. How often does that happen? Probably not a whole lot.

 

Great answer Bigvman23! I agree totally.

Hummm...I don't know that I can answer that question, mostly being I'm not sure what the term "great physical attribute" is in reference to the post or in comparison to what others would consider a "great physical attribute", but I will try.

 

Let's take a very easy, but notable example. Larry Bird. It could be argued that Larry Bird had no "great" physical attribute, comparably to his level of competition. He wasn't fast, wasn't quick, not an explosive jumper...outside of being tall in relation to the general public, it could be argued he really didn't have any one great thing.

 

What did he have? Well he had all of the things I listed, and had them in spades. He also got the most out of the physical attributes he had. And the sum of his parts were greater than the individual pieces. How often does that happen? Probably not a whole lot.

 

Larry Bird was 6'9 with incredible hand-eye coordination and a natural shot. Those are 3 physical attributes that 99% of players don't have.

 

I agree that you have to have the desire to A. Improve and B. Compete. However, without at least 1 "great" attribute, then you can't be great as a player. You can be good, but never great.

It takes dedication to the fundamentals. The kids that put in time at home,away from school ball, are the ones that succeed. I think kids get more from home than school practices at many places. The ones willing to do ball handling in the basement on cold days,lift weights,work on shooting form, and stay in shape. I like a humble player,with heart and hustle too.