Obviously, if a guy is averaging 30 PPG, it's a lot more likely for him to have a night when he scores 10 than it is for him to have a night when he scores 50.
Since I've kept track of the +/- V. AVGs, we've had only 32 "trials" (4 days X 8 players) so the sample size may not be large enough.
But I'm wondering...Why have we had 24 instances where we scored lower than our V. Avg, and only 7 cases of scoring higher (one tie)?
That the cases in which we scored lower have much larger point swings is explained, I think, in the first paragraph above, but why so few cases of doing better than average, even if only by a little bit?
Even if you throw out the days when someone scored well below their V. Avg. because someone didn't play, I think after 32 trials we'd be much closer to 16-16 (even with wider downside swings, which I understand the reason for).
