Are you despondent that
/1page has 1000 hits an HOUR and
/2page only has 3 hits a WEEK?

Not really.

Do you agree that not every page is a winner?

Yes and not every page needs to be a landing page.

Are you perplexed why some obscure page on your site has more traffic than your "best of intent" pages?

Deeply. More on this later.

Do you then dissect those performing pages to find out what's different about them that makes them so popular?

Not typically.

I have site that has a unique structure. I have millions of pages and all the pages are similar, nearly identical in some ways but not in a duplicate content kind of way. That is each page provides unique insight to a specific entity. But the pages are very much the same and the entities are the largely the same in terms popularity, commonality. As such, based what one would assume to be objective measures such a "page quality" or "trustworthiness" any one page that achieve a high rank should mean that all pages should rank well. This is not the case. I see totally random pages ranking and gaining traffic whereas as page that one would suspect to do well languish. There is no real pattern to speak of with the one exception that is edge cases, and extreme cases tend to do much better. In my specific case it would be where an entity for which I have page would share a name or keyword with some other unrelated but extreme thing. People would then look up that extreme item in terms of my niche, that then gets shared and linked and then that page ranks.

I have a second site that for a few years had no traffic. After a few month of no traffic, I decided to add a few pages because it seemed logical to add them. Basically the site show stats about events, and aggregates all the stats from all the events and then includes the aggregate as benchmark by which to compare the individual events to. The initial site showed only the event pages but I thought it would be logical to show a few pages that summarized only the aggregates. Well it turns out that Google much preferred the aggregate statistics pages over the other pages. Traffic continues to grow to the site, albeit it slowly, but for the life of me I can't get the individual events to pages to rank but the aggregate pages are doing just fine. In my view the individual pages are more useful but for some reason Google doesn't seem to agree.

The other perplexing thing is that the data is all US and Canada based and traffic comes from the UK and EU. So, as the traffic comes from the EU so do the links, then more traffic comes from the EU.

The initial site showed only the event pages but I thought it would be logical to show a few pages that summarized only the aggregates. Well it turns out that Google much preferred the aggregate statistics pages over the other pages.

Could this be an example of g's mantra of "more value"?

What makes it all crazy is the "other data" is required to get to the "aggregate" in the first place!