I agree that my opponent has better players as it can be seen from salaries and end-game ratings but how come I have around 30 more average points per 100 offensive possessions? I think I got the edge. I'm not asking this to criticise your points but as an inexperienced coach, I wonder.
Because PP100 are an interesting but utterly useless rating. I've lost count of the times where a SG with 90+ PP100 would put up a 3-17 (1-8) type performance. The amount of streakiness that seems to be on display, especially for outside shooting, simply doesn't have enough of a sample size in most games to consistently approach what is calculated if 100 shots were being taken. I fortunately have a poster child game for this too, a finals game where I ran patient with my best outside shooter at C against a friend of mine who I knew played Man to Man consistently, and whose center was a superb player but had horrible OD.
(69079208)Look at the box score and you see the C position (which he played 48 min at) was expected to put up 96.6 PP100. Look in the viewer, fast forward to the 36 minute mark and check out the stats, and he was 0-11, 0-2 from three, for zero points. The point there is not that I lost - I expected to lose and this was a halfcourt heave to try to steal the win because straight up my opponent was much better - but 0-11 on 96PP100 means either the PP100 stat was flawed or his shooting was flawed, and knowing his skills and the opposing center's skills, I'd expect a 10-11 ten times before an 0-11.