Slovenia’s Game Clinching Threes | NBA Playbook

Slovenia’s Game Clinching Threes

Against Brazil, Slovenia took the lead early and hung on for the win.  That doesn’t mean it was uneventful though, as Brazil cut Slovenia’s lead to five twice late in the fourth quarter.  Each time Slovenia responded with a clutch three point shot:

Post Threat Opens Up Outside

Slovenia’s offense involves a lot of cut, dives, and post ups.  In addition to having that stuff get open looks, it also draws the help side defense, and that is what freed up Slovenia’s first three up by five with right around 3 minutes left.

Up five with around three minutes left, Slovenia is trying to milk the clock.  Instead of having their point guard dribbling out the clock, they do it the correct way though in my opinion, they run through their offense.  The first step is having a double screen set for their point guard.

The first screener dives to  the ball side block on a roll while the second screener pops out.  As this happens, the two players on the weakside exchange for each other.

The ball gets swung to the top and Slovenia now executes a dribble handoff.

The handoff turns into a screen, and after setting the screen the Slovenian big man rolls to the block.

Slovenia now has two players setting up on the block, posting up.  This strong seal causes Brazil’s outside defenders to sag in a bit.

A no look pass (seriously, this pass is fantastic, you need to see it live) to the outside gets the outside defender to jump the wrong way.

The defender can’t close out in time, and Slovenia is able to knock down the three and extend the lead to eight points while taking valuable time off of the clock.

Click To View Slovenia’s First Three

What I like about this is that Slovenia effectively used their offensive sets to not only burn clock, but get them a wide open look.  Good execution by Slovenia.

Forcing A Switch

After that first three pointer, Brazil was able to scrap their way back, cutting Slovenia’s lead to five once more, this time with around 0:30 seconds left.  Brazil was making their final stand here, get a stop they still have a chance to win, allow a basket and it is all over.  Slovenia used this to their advantage by forcing a switch.

After getting the ball from the side, Slovenia runs a pick and roll, with Tiago Splitter’s man as the screener.

After coming off the screen, the ball handler pulls the basketball out.  This shows that the purpose of the screen was to force a switch, and not and try to get a basket.  Brazil does in fact switch the screen, and now the big man Splitter is forced to cover a quicker guard.

The quicker guard is able to get in the lane, and this penetration forces a ton of help to come over.  This leaves the corner three pointer wide open.

The guard hits the man in the corner and he rises up for the uncontested three, knocking it down and essentially clinching the game for Slovenia, as they now lead by eight with twenty seconds left.

Click To View Slovenia Forcing A Switch

Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.  The purpose of this is so that they prevent penetration and keep ballhandlers on the outside.  Slovenia knows that Brazil is going to switch any screen, so they are able to use this to their advantage.  Slovenia uses a screen to force the switch and they use that switch to get a drive and kick basket.

02
Sep 2010
POSTED BY
POSTED IN 4th Quarters FIBA Worlds Team Brazil Team Slovenia
DISCUSSION 5 Comments
TAGS

  • Kamron

    “Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.” I agree that this occurs, but it's never made sense to me: if either switching or hedging has a better chance of preventing a score, then teams ought to do that one preferentially all game. If one is better than the other in specific circumstances (eg when the offense only has a few seconds to shoot maybe switching is better) then that ought to be chosen regardless of how much time is on the game clock.
    But doing one all game and then the other late 'because we really want to stop them this time' doesn't make sense to me. Maybe if teams prefer to stick with set plays rather than freelance on those final possessions, and switching handles this better than hedging or doubleteaming it would make sense. Or if switching only works when the players, particularly the bigs, are really focused (ie if your big just lets the guard shoot a jumper on a switch in the 2nd quarter, but will play aggressively in the final minute).

  • Kamron

    “Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.” I agree that this occurs, but it’s never made sense to me: if either switching or hedging has a better chance of preventing a score, then teams ought to do that one preferentially all game. If one is better than the other in specific circumstances (eg when the offense only has a few seconds to shoot maybe switching is better) then that ought to be chosen regardless of how much time is on the game clock.
    But doing one all game and then the other late ‘because we really want to stop them this time’ doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe if teams prefer to stick with set plays rather than freelance on those final possessions, and switching handles this better than hedging or doubleteaming it would make sense. Or if switching only works when the players, particularly the bigs, are really focused (ie if your big just lets the guard shoot a jumper on a switch in the 2nd quarter, but will play aggressively in the final minute).

  • Kamron

    “Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.” I agree that this occurs, but it’s never made sense to me: if either switching or hedging has a better chance of preventing a score, then teams ought to do that one preferentially all game. If one is better than the other in specific circumstances (eg when the offense only has a few seconds to shoot maybe switching is better) then that ought to be chosen regardless of how much time is on the game clock.
    But doing one all game and then the other late ‘because we really want to stop them this time’ doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe if teams prefer to stick with set plays rather than freelance on those final possessions, and switching handles this better than hedging or doubleteaming it would make sense. Or if switching only works when the players, particularly the bigs, are really focused (ie if your big just lets the guard shoot a jumper on a switch in the 2nd quarter, but will play aggressively in the final minute).

  • Kamron

    “Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.” I agree that this occurs, but it’s never made sense to me: if either switching or hedging has a better chance of preventing a score, then teams ought to do that one preferentially all game. If one is better than the other in specific circumstances (eg when the offense only has a few seconds to shoot maybe switching is better) then that ought to be chosen regardless of how much time is on the game clock.
    But doing one all game and then the other late ‘because we really want to stop them this time’ doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe if teams prefer to stick with set plays rather than freelance on those final possessions, and switching handles this better than hedging or doubleteaming it would make sense. Or if switching only works when the players, particularly the bigs, are really focused (ie if your big just lets the guard shoot a jumper on a switch in the 2nd quarter, but will play aggressively in the final minute).

  • Kamron

    “Just like in the NBA, teams in the FIBA Worlds like to switch screens late when they need a stop.” I agree that this occurs, but it's never made sense to me: if either switching or hedging has a better chance of preventing a score, then teams ought to do that one preferentially all game. If one is better than the other in specific circumstances (eg when the offense only has a few seconds to shoot maybe switching is better) then that ought to be chosen regardless of how much time is on the game clock.
    But doing one all game and then the other late 'because we really want to stop them this time' doesn't make sense to me. Maybe if teams prefer to stick with set plays rather than freelance on those final possessions, and switching handles this better than hedging or doubleteaming it would make sense. Or if switching only works when the players, particularly the bigs, are really focused (ie if your big just lets the guard shoot a jumper on a switch in the 2nd quarter, but will play aggressively in the final minute).