2010 NBA Finals: Why 2008 Tells Us Nothing About This Year

As a society, we love making hyperbolic statements to make ourselves sound smart. 

Women when they heard Tiger Woods was a cheater: "I always knew there was something I didn't like about him—the way he threw clubs on the course and cursed...I knew he was doing something wrong!"

Men when they heard Tiger Woods' wife may be newly single and $500 million richer:  "Man, I bet if I see her at a club, and she's drunk enough, and I'm wearing just enough Axe Body Spray...I bet I can get with her and get some of that money!"

And our friends, family, wives/girlfriends, and co-workers will all sit idly by and listen to our outlandish plans and thoughts.  Never mind the fact that the woman has a cheating husband of her own and the man works a minimum-wage job at a gas station.

Facts have no relevance when making hyperbolic statements, and that's why we love them.

As men, our favorite hyperboles involve just two things: women and sports.

From the cutie at the bar who has been staring at you all night to the rec league softball game, you won with a spectacular diving catch—the hyperboles are a never-ending cycle. 

Don't get me wrong.  Hyperboles are great.  They help us get through our mundane day by creating conversation that, without hyperbole, would have been stifled. 

However, it's when hyperbole gets out of control that it truly bothers me.

Just yesterday MLB umpire Jim Joyce made a mistake and it cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game.  Jim Joyce did not "rob" Galarraga or fans of anything—he just made a human mistake in a game played by humans. 

Yet, if you checked the blogosphere, Twitter, or Facebook yesterday, you would have thought Jim Joyce was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. 

In fact, the backlash was so unbelievably harsh that, today—less than 24 hours after Jim Joyce's blown call—some Tigers fans felt it was necessary to stand and applaud as the umpire picked up the lineup card for the day. 

And the man who handed it to him?  Armando Galarraga.

You see, most of the time we realize how hyperbolic our statements were and make amends.  It usually happens right about the time your ball-busting buddy decides to dare you to talk to the girl who had been staring at you all night. 

Seeing as tonight is Game One of the NBA Finals, we are on the verge of having to make our second amends in less than 24 hours for our short-sighted hyperbole.

Over the past five days, most media members, bloggers, and fans have tried to make the tie between the 2008 NBA Finals and the 2010 NBA Finals.

Why?  Because it's incredibly easy.

"Basically the same Boston team with a few exceptions.  Basically the same Lakers team with a few exceptions.  All right, let's throw a "defense wins championships" tag on this one and I'll sound like a genius!"

Never mind the fact that the Lakers are the defending NBA champions—not the Celtics.

Never mind the fact that Kobe Bryant is playing basketball at an all-around level that we have not seen since the "Shaqobe" era.

Never mind the fact that Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are two years older, two years slower, and in the case of Garnett, one leg limpier. 

None of those facts matter because you can just say Rajon Rondo, the NBA Playoffs golden boy, can make up for all of these differences—ignoring the fact that Rondo had only one truly great series this entire postseason. 

With Los Angeles having home court advantage in this series and Kobe-Gasol duo having two-and-a-half seasons of playing-time together instead of the two months they had in 2008, the only true similarities between the 2008 series and the 2010 series are names of some players, names of coaches, and venues the games will be played at. 

However, as a society, we love the hyperbole.

So, the 2008 NBA Finals and the 2010 NBA Finals are the same: The Celtics will win again because the Lakers are a soft LA team and Pau Gasol is a soft, foreign player. 

The Celtics will win because Kobe Bryant is a selfish diva that only wants to win for his own personal gain.  And, of course, the Celtics will win because "defense wins championships".

Sadly, for the hyperbolic folks among us, this isn't 2008—it's 2010.

However, all of this said:  Celtics in six.