Report an error
Score Difference in the Final Game of the World Series correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
US average milk-fat content of cream products | r=0.88 | 7yrs | No |
The number of soil and plant scientists in Utah | r=0.72 | 18yrs | No |
The number of elementary school teachers in Montana | r=0.69 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'how to trap a spider' | r=0.69 | 16yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'learn spanish' | r=0.66 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'report UFO sighting' | r=0.63 | 19yrs | Yes! |
Score Difference in the Final Game of the World Series also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)