Take this with a grain of salt because I don't have any evidence except my own impressions. Scoring ratings on our big men were not as good as you'd expect from the difference in team ratings: PF had 1.096 per attempt and C had 1.123. Our opponent scoring ratings were actually better than our team's and better than their overall team ratings would otherise suggest (PF 1.092, C 1.247, also note that their C was on average GS and had the lowest individual rating of the entire team, even lower than the 40k 23yo PG).
I've now seen a lot of games that do not make sense based on team ratings, but actually make more sense when factoring in the individual scoring ratings at the key offensive positions. I suppose it depends on matchups and skills which are undervalued in the team ratings such as DR/JR for the offensive player or SB for the player guarding him.
The other thing which is often present in games like this is huge differences in FT. Clearly our opponents did a great job getting to the line and converting. They got a ton of FTs, but again that should be due to the difference in effort and matchups.
The 2 things might be connected: it's possible that scoring ratings do factor in FT likelihood while team ratings do not.
Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/3/2015 1:14:31 PM