The Reactionary Art of Prognostication

The Miami Heat and Indiana Pacers series sits tied and the pundits are swinging wildly for the fences.

Following an enthralling game one victory in the NBA’s Eastern Conference Finals by the Heat -- one that came in overtime and left experts questioning Pacers head coach Frank Vogel -- the prognosticators sang the praises of the defending champions from Miami.

On ESPN’s flagship basketball program, its four-member panel of experts questioned if the Heat would decimate the Pacers at home in Game Two and would go on to sweep the series.

And then the Pacers won, guided by budding superstar Paul George and the human skyscraper Roy Hibbert.  Whoops.

Now, the analysts are singing the Pacers’ song and putting the team on the precipice of winning the title.  They toss about stats -- the Heat’s role players are shooting 16 percent and Shane Battier is yet to make a shot.  And the experts expect that to continue?  C’mon. 

Can we just settle down a bit?  I think we’re all pretty sure Battier will make a shot or two in the series.  And I think we all know the Heat are the better team.  So why are we so quick to swing predications?

I'm certainly no expert when compared to Magic Johnson and the like, but the Heat were in nearly this exact position last year when down 2-1 to the Pacers in the Semifinals.  The Pacers are a better team this year, but the Heat also won 27-straight games this year.

I'm still taking the Heat.

Image courtesy Business Insider.