It’s more like, if the moon were much farther away then total solar eclipses wouldn’t happen at all. But the opposite is not true. If it were closer than total solar eclipses would be more common.

It is an interesting coincidence. But the statistician in me feels like calculating the probability is a bit spurious. For one, not all combinations of distance and size are equally likely, and running physical simulations to try and get decent Monte Carlo estimates of the odds feels a bit suspect - I imagine a decent chunk of what you’d be measuring is the influence of parameters whose values are empirically unknowable.

But, even more than that, it comes from the same place that requires me, when a cashier sees the total is exactly $50 and asks, “What are the chances of that?” to actively suppress the urge to say, “About the same as for $59.37.”

The moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, but the sun is 400 times farther away, so they appear to be the same size. The solar eclipse we see, with the moon obscuring the sun but just allowing light around the edges the way it does, may be a very uncommon phenomena.

it was my vague understanding that what is weird is the apparent size matching. since the moon is slowly moving away, eventually we'll no longer have total solar eclipses, just annular and partial.