I'm trying to wrap my head around this outcome and would love any opinions.

The center on my opponent's team ends up with 15 rebounds, his stats are ATH 87 SPD 43 REB 66 DEF 88 and has A rating on off and def.
My center also ends up with 15 rebounds and his stats are ATH 94 SPD 48 REB 91 DEF 95 and has A+ rating on off and def.

Anyone have any ideas? This was in the PIT in Phelan between Indiana and St. John's if you want to see more details.

How is his team a better rebounding team? His top four rebounding ratings were 96, 77, 69, 66.
My top four were 95, 95, 91, 89.

read this thread
http://whatif.cincinnatti.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=468932&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=3

I was just about to copy the link sent by gillispie.  I would also point out that Indiana played at +2, which many have suggested will have a negative impact on rebounding.  It makes intuitive sense that it would and this game seems to fit that explanation too.

Posted by rogelio on 7/13/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):
I was just about to copy the link sent by gillispie.  I would also point out that Indiana played at +2, which many have suggested will have a negative impact on rebounding.  It makes intuitive sense that it would and this game seems to fit that explanation too.

The counter point to the +2 hurting rebounding is that it should help against the opponent's 3 point % which it did not in this case.
Am I better off running a constant defense between -2 and -5 to help with rebounding?

analysis of one game is often fruitless - small sample size can make it hard to know what effects are happening with any reliability.  Not that one shouldnt loook at one game samples, but inference is hard

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/13/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
read this thread
http://whatif.cincinnatti.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=468932&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=3

****, I need someone to translate that into English.

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/13/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
read this thread
http://whatif.cincinnatti.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=468932&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=3

****, I need someone to translate that into English.

There are a lot of interesting probability and contingent probability theories discussed in that thread, but since WIS is incredibly cryptic it would be very hard to test or prove any of them.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 7/13/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
How is his team a better rebounding team? His top four rebounding ratings were 96, 77, 69, 66.
My top four were 95, 95, 91, 89.

look at the next 4 guys.  his average rebounding on the court that game was 49.9 and yours 46.9.  you had 3 guys on the court a lot of times that didn't have much of a chance of grabbing a board.  your athleticism is significantly better, which gave you the 45-42 advantage.  I don't see a problem with that.  I believe the SIM picks which team will get the rebound, then assigns it to one of the players on that team.  I would blame the loss on Bucci, not on the rebounding.  He would light up that St. John's SG 9 out of 10 times.  He had a crappy game against a sub-par defender.  that's how it goes sometimes

If it really is overall average, where the PG REB counts as much as the C then that answers my original question, which is individual REB is meaningless.

i dont know what else factors into rebounding.  I would think ATH but not sure about anything else

PG Reb does not factor into overall rebounding the same way C Reb, at least the way I've seen it so far.  C Reb matters FAR MORE.  

Posted by yanks250125 on 7/13/2013 3:56:00 PM (view original):
i dont know what else factors into rebounding.  I would think ATH but not sure about anything else

IQ does as well.  Offensive IQ for offensive rebounds, and defensive IQ for defensive boards.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 7/13/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/13/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
read this thread
http://whatif.cincinnatti.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=468932&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=3

****, I need someone to translate that into English.

There are a lot of interesting probability and contingent probability theories discussed in that thread, but since WIS is incredibly cryptic it would be very hard to test or prove any of them.

My takeaway from that thread was that, clearly,  REB, ATH, IQ, STAM¹ go into the calculation of an individual player's ability to rebound [call it *REB*].  It isn't impossible that DEF & Speed enter into it as well.  Whatever makes up the individual's *REB*, it appears that the engine creates a Team *REB* of players on the floor, then, randomly assigns the rebound to one team before it assigns the rebound to an individual player by a separate calculation among the 5 on the floor.  That would explain the anecdotal evidence that a decent *REB* player on the poorer rebounding team will, more often than one might expect, out-rebound the better *REB* individual on the better *REB* team.  

I think it's safe to assume that in creating the team *REB* the engine weights the assigned position of each player (C highest weight to PG lowest).  Most likely, the game also ranks the systems for rebounding as well (e.g. 3-2 is worst, then 2-3, then press, then M2M).  Further, the update that I found from some time back purported to add an individual match-up function to rebounding.  I have no idea how that would work, but I presume it would be an additional effect within the above calculation, rather than completely re-writing it.  Moreover, it seems to support the theory on how rebounding is simmed by suggesting that an individual match-up had to be later added.

¹ Edit: instead of STAM directly, it's more likely to be present fatigue/health.