---

Chris Mannix: Nets waive forward Sean May, almost one month after signing him. Twitter
Rumors tagsNew Jersey Nets, Sean May | share Share on FacebookShare on twitterComment on HoopsHype forums

Chris Mannix: May broke his left foot in basketball workouts last week and GM Billy King said recovery time would not provide legit chance to make team Twitter

---

---

ISTANBUL (AP) -- FIBA's dance team has been benched during Turkey's games.

The Red Foxes have been told to stop performing in games involving the host country because their risque costumes and routines are offensive to the nation that is nearly entirely Muslim. Islam prohibits women from exposing their skin in public.

Basketball's governing body said Wednesday the ban was not its decision. Secretary general Patrick Baumann said he wants entertainment to be part of the games, but "if it needs a little bit of adjustment that is fine with us.''

Performers wore long pants Wednesday during a game between the United States and Iran. Iranian officials had turned their backs when the dancers, who usually wear tiny shorts or skirts, performed in earlier games.

The Red Foxes, a professional dance team from the Ukraine, will still perform at other games in Ankara.

"The dancers bring much fun and joy to fans watching games and help to create a vibrant, happy atmosphere in the arenas,'' Baumann said.

FIBA's statement did not include who imposed the ban or the reason for it, though said there was speculation that the dance routines were "too risque.'' It added that Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, his wife and the country's minister for foreign affairs attended Turkey's victories over Russia on Sunday and Greece on Tuesday.

"It is a balance between respecting the culture and making sure basketball delivers all the pace, excitement and entertainment that goes with the world championship,'' Baumann said.

---

---

1. Kobe Bryant LA Lakers
$24,806,250
2. Rashard Lewis Orlando

$20,514,000
3. Kevin Garnett Boston
$18,800,000
4. Tim Duncan San Antonio
$18,700,000
5. Michael Redd Milwaukee
$18,300,000
6. Pau Gasol LA Lakers
$17,822,187
7. Andrei Kirilenko Utah
$17,822,187
8. Yao Ming Houston

$17,686,100
9. Gilbert Arenas Washington

$17,730,694
10. Dirk Nowitzki Dallas
$17,300,000
11. Vince Carter Orlando
$17,300,000
12. Zach Randolph Memphis
$17,333,333
13. Carmelo Anthony Denver
$17,149,243
14. Amare Stoudemire New York
$16,800,000
15. Dwight Howard Orlando
$16,509,600
16. Joe Johnson Atlanta
$16,324,500
17. Kenyon Martin Denver
$15,959,099
-. Elton Brand Philadelphia
$15,959,099
19. Predrag Stojakovic New Orleans
$15,336,000
20. Chris Paul New Orleans

$14,940,152
-. Deron Williams Utah

$14,940,152
22. LeBron James Miami

$14,500,000
-. Chris Bosh Miami

$14,500,000
24. Jason Richardson Phoenix

$14,444,444
25. Carlos Boozer Chicago

$14,400,000
26. Dwyane Wade Miami

$14,000,000
27. Paul Pierce Boston

$13,876,321
28. Andrew Bynum LA Lakers

$13,842,332
29. Brandon Roy Portland

$13,520,500
30. Tony Parker San Antonio

$13,500,000
Team Payrolls
1. Los Angeles Lakers
$94,745,383
2. Orlando Magic
$89,855,582

3. Dallas Mavericks

$85,761,280
4. Denver Nuggets

$83,020,059
5. Boston Celtics

$82,247,646
6. Charlotte Bobcats

$74,220,085
7. Houston Rockets
$72,674,506
8. Portland Trail Blazers
$70,981,038
9. Philadelphia 76ers
$69,399,239
10. Utah Jazz

$68,848,659
11. Atlanta Hawks
$68,672,381
12. New Orleans Hornets
$67,829,156
13. Milwaukee Bucks
$67,654,539
14. San Antonio Spurs
$64,913,339
15. Detroit Pistons
$64,682,022
16. Indiana Pacers
$64,368,421
17. Golden State Warriors
$63,557,033
18. Phoenix Suns
$55,442,134
19. New Jersey Nets
$54,628,842
20. Miami Heat
$53,850,126
21. Memphis Grizzlies

$51,181,020
22. Cleveland Cavaliers
$50,256,074
23. Oklahoma City Thunder
$50,254,586
24. Washington Wizards
$50,027,904
25. Toronto Raptors
$49,377,485
26. Los Angeles Clippers

$47,023,006
27. Chicago Bulls
$46,714,007
28. New York Knicks
$44,767,013
29. Sacramento Kings
$38,973,740
30. Minnesota Timberwolves
$37,600,032

---

---

One year, a player seems on top of the basketball world, enjoying the high as well as the view below. The next year, he's falling without a parachute, wondering when he'll finally land, and how hard.

This happens. This is sports. Everyone declines, even the greats, unless they leave before their feet touches the ground. Just like taxes and a Mark Cuban rant toward a referee, it's inevitable. And it usually doesn't happen suddenly; most of us can see it coming, for a variety of reasons: age, competition or a change in team dynamics.

That said, here are 10 players who appear most vulnerable to a slide in 2010-11, and why:

Amar'e Stoudemire (Knicks): He lost Steve Nash and he gained a potentially hostile crowd. Those are the hazards facing Stoudemire in his new digs. The Nash factor is very real; Stoudemire owes a bunch of his highlights to a point guard who excelled in the pick-and-roll and knew how to deliver the ball. As for the New York atmosphere, it might get gruesome should the Knicks falter and/or their new big man fail to meet the steep expectations. If you recall, Stoudemire was a bit touchy last spring when he was called out in the postseason. Therefore, is he too sensitive to deal with media that's triple the size of what he saw in Phoenix, and twice as skeptical?

Vince Carter (Magic): This may be a contract year for Carter, and if that doesn't motivate him, nothing will. The scenario in Orlando doesn't favor his odds of getting an extension. He shot 43 percent during the season and 40 in a poor postseason. Plus, J.J. Redick is poised to make a push for the starting job. Clearly, the Magic are ready to move on, if Redick does cut significantly into Carter's minutes. Anyway, Carter's best years were in Toronto and New Jersey. His stop in Orlando mirrors many others who migrate to Florida. They come to slow down and eventually retire.

Yao Ming (Rockets): After missing all last season and limping through stretches of recent seasons, can he ever be a 20 and 10 guy again? It is possible Yao can shake off the rust and be an All-Star. Or, his best years are well behind him. Nothing is certain for a player who could have revolutionized the center position had he stayed healthy from foot and knee issues. Instead, his health will remain a question until his body demonstrates otherwise. Also, his surroundings are a bit different than the years spent with Tracy McGrady, a tandem wrecked by injuries to both players.

Tony Parker (Spurs): It's a contract year for Parker, and therefore, risky to say he's headed for a spill. But it's also undeniable that his numbers fell across the board last season. And would you say, without hesitation, that this is the same Parker of two seasons ago, when he posted career highs of 22.0 points and 6.9 assists a game? If Parker were still on top of his game, would the Spurs think about listening to offers for him (as they supposedly did this summer)? Or wait before giving him an extension? Parker is certainly not old (only 28) or in his twilight (he's one of the top five or six point guards), but perhaps not as dangerous as before. With George Hill hungry for playing time (and eventually, money), Parker has every reason to turn back the clock.

Baron Davis (Clippers): In two seasons with the Clippers, Davis has shot 39 percent and averaged 15 points a game. That's not the kind of production the Clippers thought they'd get after handing him the big bucks. Just the same, Davis thought he'd be playing with Elton Brand. Regardless, something's seems amiss in this marriage, at least so far. The Clippers can only hope Davis is motivated by a lineup that welcomes Blake Griffin.

J.R. Smith (Nuggets): Great skills, fragile maturity. Those warring factions have kept Smith from his true potential. One episode is usually followed by another with Smith, who can't seem to shake drama. He averaged 15.4 points a game last season, the highest of his career, and was a legit sixth-man candidate. Then he followed it up with a scuffle this summer. He's in a contract year, but can money set him straight?

Kevin Garnett (Celtics): KG managed to ignore body aches and the persistent pull of gravity to come up big in spurts during the playoffs and The Finals. But anyone can plainly see KG is slowly regressing from All-Star level. He still has the will and the smarts to outplay most big men, but is exposed over the season and playoffs. At this point, the days of KG getting 20 points, 10 rebounds and two blocks a night are likely gone.

Lamar Odom (Lakers): His shooting percentage and scoring average has dipped the last three years, and he seemed noticeably average during the championship run. Odom still has value to the Lakers as a rebounder, but the rest of his game has faltered. Once the Lakers cease winning championships, his weaknesses will become magnified. And that could happen this season.

Mo Williams (Cavaliers): Does he take on added importance and responsibility with LeBon James gone? Or does the absence of LeBron, who opened lanes and gave teammates open looks, mean fewer easy baskets for Mo? Suspect the latter. Williams must create his own chances now, and also feed Anderson Varejao and Antawn Jamison because, for the most part, LeBron was Cleveland's point guard. Now, it's Mo's "team," so to speak.

Elton Brand (Sixers): For the fourth straight year, Brand's scoring average dropped (from 24.7 in 2005-06 to 13.1 last season) along with his rebounding (once double-figures, then 6.1 rebounds a game last season). He blamed the system, which will be changed by new coach Doug Collins, whose priority is making Brand a top-10 power forward again. Maybe Brand was a victim of bad coaching the last few years. Or perhaps Brand, who'll turn 32 this season, is past his prime. With three years left on a roughly $16 million-a-season contract, Brand carries a hefty price as a second or third option.

---

---

Jerry Buss - is being sued by a completely sane man in Kentucky who claims that Buss sold him Jeannie on eBay and promised him a janitorial job when he got out of prison.

---

---

A few days ago I blogged about defense winning championships. Then I blogged about it again. Now that I'm getting a heck of a lot of e-mail, phone calls and comments about it, I can't stop!

To recap: We're not really just talking about the old adage here. Instead, we're talking about newly unearthed numbers showing that being an elite defensive team has, historically, make it more likely that you'd win a title than a team that was similarly good at offense. Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference looked at a half-century of title-winning teams. They're pretty much all good at offense and defense. However, he noticed that small improvements to defense increased a team's chances of winning titles a lot more than the same improvement to offense.

In general, especially when you measure by possession, the game is half offense and half defense. Right? Makes sense. Possessions alternate just about all game -- you get a chance to score, and then its our turn. All game long you're playing offense or defense, in alternating stints. They ought to both be important.

But when it comes to winning titles, the numbers suggest what coaches have been harping on since the dawn of timeouts -- the defensive part matters a little more than the offensive part.

I have already offered two quick theories as to why:

* Maybe defensive efficiency is a marker for which teams have good coaching and team cohesion. In other words, of course the defense itself helps, but maybe showing you can play good team defense is also a way of showing that you're a good team, a team that's prepared to hang together when the going gets tough, and maybe that's really what's winning those titles.
* My first guess was that offense is more volatile than defense, because it's based on shooting, which is an iffy proposition for even the best shooters in the world. What that means to me is that if your team's main thing is being able to score like crazy, and that's how you intend to win, you will still have games -- every team does -- where the ball does not go in the hoop as much as normal. Those games will be losses for you against good opponents.


But now there are many more theories to consider:

David Thorpe has been reading all this, and loves the idea that good defense may be a marker for team cohesion. However, he also thinks we have been missing a major point, which is that good defense leads to good offense, and the opposite is less true.

One of the ways this is true is that playing really active team defense is a way to make the referee blow the whistle in your favor. Illegal screens, over-the-back, frustration fouls, even technicals -- intense defense drives all of these things, which can in turn help your team with free throws. (It occurs to me those things can also, of course, get opposing players in foul trouble.)

But the most obvious way a good defense can help your offense is in creating live turnovers. A few years ago, Sandy Weil and John Huizinga, as part of their hot hand research, found something pretty important. As I wrote after they presented their findings at MIT: "How you get the ball matters tremendously to how likely you are to score with it. If you get the ball in a live ball turnover (a steal for instance) your shooting percentage is 12% higher than normal. If you get the ball from an offensive rebound, it's 8% higher. Home teams, meanwhile, shoot 1.5% better -- so you can see these advantages are major."

"I don't care what kind of offense you run," says Thorpe, "it works better if you start it by forcing turnovers."

Meanwhile, coaches often say that offense can help defense, because you can set up your defense more easily as opponents inbound after your made shot.

Thorpe also believes that teams with a reputation for playing good defense have multi-faceted psychological advantages. For instance, playing against the Celtics, Kobe Bryant or LeBron James might tweak his normal shot selection, knowing that there won't be any easy opportunities. That may earn the Celtics some key stops -- thanks to poor shot selection by opponents -- before they even start playing defense.

Paine's numbers showed that elite defensive teams won more championships than you'd expect. And I think what we're finding is that if you're one of those really great defensive teams we might also know that you're likely to:

* Be well coached.
* Have good teamwork.
* Get more easy offensive possessions than an average team.
* Draw more offensive fouls and violations.
* Have certain psychological advantages.


Some other e-mailers have additional thoughts:

* One of the best offensive performances in NBA playoff history was Michael Jordan's 63 points against the Celtics. But it is interesting to note how even though the Celtics could do nothing at all to stop the most potent offensive force in the game, they still played good team defense generally (and offense) and marched on to a title while the Bulls were swept in the first round.
* The numbers may be a bit skewed, because good teams allow few points and score a lot. That means a point or two of improvement in defensive efficiency is a bigger deal than the same improvement in offense. On Basketball-Reference.com, commenter Jax points out: "Allowing 10 fewer points on defense is a lot harder to do than adding 10 points on offense. The percentages are also different. 80 -> 70 is a 14.2% change. 80 -> 90 is a 11.1% change."
* A few other e-mailers pointed out that in the playoffs referees have the reputation of allowing more physical play, which favors aggressive defenses more than aggressive offenses. (This is suspect, however, as a way to explain titles. Almost every year, teams shoot more free throws in the playoffs than in the regular season. This is a topic for another post ...)
* Wayne Winston, the business professor who supplied the Mavericks with statistical insight for nearly a decade, e-mails: "I think you are right on team concept. In playoffs teams will always find your weakness. A chain is as strong as its weakest link so a weakness on defense will usually be more important than an offensive weakness. ... You have to win four series to win the title and any serious weakness is bound to show up.

---