PrimumHockeyist
Registered User
Whenever I introduce an idea, I always assume that it is flawed somehow. The more significant the idea seems, the more I feel that I should ask if my understanding is correct. I would rather know that something is incorrect than leave a bad idea out there for others to get misled by.
So here's where I'm going.
A while back, on this board, I said that I believe that I had found data that proves, in a statistical way, that Canada's three greatest goals were subject to a non-random effect. Then I got sidetracked by another project that took a lot longer than I thought it would. At last, I am now ready to revisit this project and this subtopic in particular. I figure that if others can shred my findings on this subject, that I won't have to finish said project. I would be happy to, for the reasons mentioned.
My argument is/was that Paul Henderson's, Mario Lemieux's and Sidney Crosby's goals combine to produce three "significant and highly improbable" anomalies that defeat science's Null Hypothesis test. The NH test is the standard by that Science uses to determine if data is or is not random.
Since I've just resumed this other project, I thought that if I posted this particular finding here, for peer review, then somebody may come along before I've finished the project and show me the error of my ways. I am actually hoping that this information can be falsified, if it can be falsified. Private and public corrections or comments are both very welcome. In the meantime, I will move forward with said project, based on the assumption that my current conclusions are valid.
For the record, what I find intriguing about this is not whether individuals believe in chance or whatever. What interests me the most is that Canada's three greatest goals seem to crush the NH test, by providing significant and highly improbable data that NH test-takers won't be able to match when working with random trios of goals.
My data involves no swamp gas or possibly doctored videos. There is nothing "alleged" about it. I say this because, when one begins to reflect on the underlying improbabilities, no reasonable person would think that this kind of combined result could possibly appear when one works with randomly generated trios of hockey goals. And that is the point !!
That is the NH test here. If you can't match this combined Henderson-Lemieux-Crosby (HLC) data more than 1 in 3 times, then working with random trios of goals, then Science itself would say that we have what appears to be a non-random situation worthy of further investigation.
For a fuller discussion, click here.
So here's where I'm going.
A while back, on this board, I said that I believe that I had found data that proves, in a statistical way, that Canada's three greatest goals were subject to a non-random effect. Then I got sidetracked by another project that took a lot longer than I thought it would. At last, I am now ready to revisit this project and this subtopic in particular. I figure that if others can shred my findings on this subject, that I won't have to finish said project. I would be happy to, for the reasons mentioned.
My argument is/was that Paul Henderson's, Mario Lemieux's and Sidney Crosby's goals combine to produce three "significant and highly improbable" anomalies that defeat science's Null Hypothesis test. The NH test is the standard by that Science uses to determine if data is or is not random.
Since I've just resumed this other project, I thought that if I posted this particular finding here, for peer review, then somebody may come along before I've finished the project and show me the error of my ways. I am actually hoping that this information can be falsified, if it can be falsified. Private and public corrections or comments are both very welcome. In the meantime, I will move forward with said project, based on the assumption that my current conclusions are valid.
For the record, what I find intriguing about this is not whether individuals believe in chance or whatever. What interests me the most is that Canada's three greatest goals seem to crush the NH test, by providing significant and highly improbable data that NH test-takers won't be able to match when working with random trios of goals.
My data involves no swamp gas or possibly doctored videos. There is nothing "alleged" about it. I say this because, when one begins to reflect on the underlying improbabilities, no reasonable person would think that this kind of combined result could possibly appear when one works with randomly generated trios of hockey goals. And that is the point !!
That is the NH test here. If you can't match this combined Henderson-Lemieux-Crosby (HLC) data more than 1 in 3 times, then working with random trios of goals, then Science itself would say that we have what appears to be a non-random situation worthy of further investigation.
For a fuller discussion, click here.