Are the Los Angeles Lakers Just as Good as the Boston Celtics, Defensively?

Many people assumed the 2010 NBA Finals would be a battle of the Boston Celtics' feared defense, and the Los Angeles Lakers' precision offense, but someone forgot to mention the Lakers are a pretty good defensive team too.

All season long Los Angeles has been among the NBA's best defensive teams, but their performance on that end of the floor tends to be overshadowed by the offensive brilliance of Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol.

In fact, the Lakers' defense was the most consistent part of a very inconsistent regular season for the defending NBA champions, and once the postseason began they turned it up another level.

The Lakers have allowed 43 percent shooting from the field, 31 percent from three point range, and 43 rebounds per game, all which are the best in the 2010 NBA postseason.

In Game One of the Finals the Lakers made those numbers hold up as they held the Celtics to 89 points, out rebounded them 42-31, and had an amazing 16 second chance points to the Celtics' zero.

It was a truly dominant defensive performance by the Lakers, but considering the teams Los Angeles had to conquer in order to arrive at this point, it should hardly be unexpected.

Boston is a decent offensive team, but they're not the Phoenix Suns, and Rajon Rondo and Kevin Garnett are not Steve Nash and Amar'e Stoudemire, nor does anyone on the Celtics' roster have the scoring potential of Kevin Durant.

Rondo is a great point guard, but his lack of a perimeter game didn't put the same type of pressure on the Lakers' guards like Nash, and Utah's Deron Williams, did in the earlier rounds.

Likewise, Garnett is a great post player, but he lacks the explosiveness of a player like Stoudemire, who constantly tested the strength of the Lakers' interior players.

Phoenix was the best offensive team in the NBA and the postseason, and their ability to place four players in the game who are all capable of...

About the Author