OK, it is answer time. I sometimes do these totals at the end of the year, but not every year, so I don't have all the previous years stats to compare. What I found interesting & insightful this year, tho, was the low placement of 41. This is usually the primary number that totals are played off of as it contains the most combinations of "natural scores". (31-10, 24-17 etc). Rudy helped enforce this, as he guessed the 41, as I did. Lestat played off of the 41, but to another key number of (41+3) 44.
Sorry, I don't have the time for a bell curve or graph.........maybe next time. And, thank you so very much to Lestat, who pointed out there are only 256 games, not 512. I knew this, and used the right number of 256 when I computed the percentages, but somehow had a brain drain when I posted the thread. The Hitman rushes his posts sometimes. Lestat also had the best guess, as the #44 came in 3rd. Kbyoda was closest to the winner as he liked 37.
TOP FINISHERS
figured on an individual team schedule of 512.
33total pts .. 24 times, 4.7% of all games
47 24 4.7
44 23 4.5
27 18 3.5
37 18 3.5
41 17 3.3
51 16 3.1
55 15 2.9
30 15 2.9
40 15 2.9
55 15 2.9
38 14 2.8
43 14 2.8
50 14 2.8
57 14 2.8
54 13 2.6
48 12 2.4
52 12 2.4
It trails off from here on down.
NOTABLES:
That 33 came in first was a surprise. If anyone had told me that the total of 33 would come in almost 5% of the time for the season, well, I guess I would have taken out a small wager against it. Maybe even a big one.
41 came in only 6th, which baffled me. 27 & 33 each came in more times.
42 only came in 7 times. I (& GJN) would have thought more.
The strong showing of the #27.
There were 55 games in the 20's, a whopping 10.7% of all games played ! However only 4 of these landed on an expected 28 ,only 2 on 24 and 2 on 21. So, 47 of 55 games had "un natural numbers". Amazing. 27 carried the bulk of the way here, I suppose that should be a natural number, too.
Of 23 games with 21 or less points scored, only 2 were at 21.
3 games totaled in the 80's and 1 game at 10 or less. (10-0)
It is interesting , especially totals players, no note the decline of the 41. The last time I did this, I noted the same thing. Years ago, 41 was THE number. The 2 point conversion and the willingness by coaches to go for it often, has seemed to dilute all reasoning in playing key numbers. 44 and 41 still did ok, but not good enough to constantly base a totals play on. 48 & 38 have faded away to mediocrity..........cripes, 40 & 55 got landed on more.
Hope this proved interesting to some. Thanks for playing along & thanks again Lestat. CMarco, I am not sure whether you were serious, just not paying attention or were trying to be wise. if it is the former, have your book contact me. I would like to play with anyone who has NFL final scores of 43.5. Maybe you were watching the figure skating finals & got confused. If it was the latter, please refrain from disrupting my threads in the future.........as they are usually seriously intended.
GL to all this weekend and HIT EM..............THE HITMAN
**Sorry the columns didn't seperate online. Each column is 2 digits, so just draw a vertical line after the first 2 and 4 digits. If anyone can tell me how to do this correctly , I, along with others would appreciate it, as I see it happens to them sometimes, also.
