There is a funny thing about science. You have those hypotheses that you are able to advance prior to your experiment. Those are called by a funny Latin term, a priori. Those that you are unable to formulate after you have conducted your experiment are called by a funny Latin term, a posteriori. See what happens when your parents pay for an education?
Scientific method calls for you first to identify a null hypothesis. This, in laymen's terms, means you are an opinionated
Scientific method also calls for you to articulate an alternative hypothesis. This, in laymen's terms, means you are an opinionated
As my first piece of evidence, I offer the goal scored by the Winnipeg Jets 9 seconds into tonight's contest. Since we only score 2 goals per game, I suggest that giving one up in the first moments of the game is not such a good thing. I postulate that Dubinsky will not tolerate that. Therefore, he should be named captain.
In order to test my hypothesis, the CBJ's record after Dubinsky returns should be carefully scrutinized. The record BD (before Dubinsky) and AD (after Dubinsky) should be evaluated by every fancy stat the league has available to see if he makes a measurable difference.
My a priori alternative hypothesis is that Brandon Dubninsky makes a measurable difference in CBJ performance as measured in the win column. If the data supports such a notion, he should be made Captain. End of discussion.