I guess you ain't good at maths.
You guessed incorrectly.
It's the other way around: 88,6 vs 86,4 average... and the difference is higher when considering only the 3 outside players (which are those determining the outside ratings), 84,4 vs 80.
The team with the inept offensive flow has a weighted PP100 average of 89.7, and the team with awful offensive flow -- 86.2.
The weight is the number of shots taken at each position (which is imperfect, since someone unknown played 4 minutes of SF on the host team, but still better than blindly averaging the PP100).
The key here is that the 63 PP100 of the visiting team's PGs is hugely irrelevant, since only 4 shots have been taken there. Same for the home team's SF and C (2 and 5 shots, respectively).
One single game is surely not enough to draw conclusions, but to me the offensive flow seems to be less important for an outside focus than to play inside... and that's exactly the problem.
This is probably true, but I don't see why it's a problem.
People used to raise hell about the three-center tactic that made look inside invulnerable. Now, when the three-center tactic is more or less dead in the water, since you need some ball handling and passing skill at the SF position to be effective, it's suddenly a problem. Inside tactics can work just fine -- just make the necessary adjustments and know when to use them.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."