Why We'll Never Know Who Had the Best NBA Team in 2012

There is a myth that the best team always wins the title. It’s not true in any sport, but generally it’s more true in the NBA than in other sports.

This year it isn’t necessarily true. Is it possible the best team in the NBA is the Miami Heat or the Oklahoma City Thunder? The answer is yes, they could be, but whether they are or not is another matter.

The Chicago Bulls had the best record in the NBA and had their best player go down with an injury in the first game of the postseason. They had arguably their second (or third) best player go down in the second game of the postseason. While there are those who make arguments that injuries are just excuses and happen to everyone, it’s not true.

The Oklahoma City Thunder didn’t lose James Harden and Kevin Durant. The Miami Heat lost Chris Bosh but not LeBron James. No, injuries don’t happen to everyone, and one of the critical aspects of this postseason is that the teams that are in the Finals got there with their teams intact. Yes, Bosh missed some games and the Heat overcame the loss, but he came back and was the difference in Game 7.

At the same time, because of his absence the Heat lost several games they might have otherwise won. Would the Pacers have taken the Heat to six games if he weren’t out? Would the Celtics have taken the Heat to seven games?

What if Dwight Howard had not gone down with an injury immediately before the season and had faced the Heat in the first round or second round? The Heat have struggled with teams that had great big men. Would a Bosh-less Heat have stood a chance against the Howard-led Orlando Magic?

There are those who will argue that this isn’t the first time injuries have happened, but there are previous times where there is a footnote on the Finals because of injuries. The Los Angeles Lakers were absent Magic Johnson and James Worthy in their 1989 Finals series with the Detroit Pistons, and no one argues that didn’t have an impact.

Furthermore, there was the whole lockout schedule that also had its own impact. Because of the schedule there is a perceived impact of more injuries (although there is also some evidence that is exaggerated). People still put an asterisk on the 1999 San Antonio Spurs championship because of the nature of whether they would have won in a conventional season.

Then there is the is the issue of the officiating and it’s perceived imbalance. How much of that is perception and how much is reality is another question, but it certainly is a factor people have talked about.

The possibility exists that the best team will win the championship, but NBA fans are exceptional at playing the “what if” game. Whether it’s deserved or not, the winner of this championship, particularly if it’s the Heat, will be questioned after the season is over. Fans believe what they want to believe, even over their own eyes, even over results.

We’ll never “know” who had the best team this year. I mean this is in the universal consensus of the word “know.” People will question the results because they want to, again, especially if the Heat win. I’m not arguing that “should be” the case. I’m arguing it “will be” the case.

Will we know who the best team is? Probably not, but we will know who the champion is, and they shouldn’t be considered as anything less. This has been one of the most stringent seasons in history, and whoever wins deserves the respect of a champion, whether they’re the best or not.

Of course, I’ll always know in my heart that if Derrick Rose hadn’t gone down the Bulls would have won. Still, whoever wins is the champion.