Report an error
Annual US household spending on clothing correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Runs scored by the New York Mets | r=0.85 | 23yrs | No |
Wins for the New York Mets | r=0.84 | 23yrs | Yes! |
Runs scored by the Los Angeles Dodgers | r=0.81 | 23yrs | No |
The number of ushers in Wyoming | r=0.81 | 17yrs | No |
Visitors to Disneyland | r=0.73 | 15yrs | No |
Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs | r=0.7 | 23yrs | No |
Total Runs Scored by Chicago Cubs Team in National League (Central and East Division) | r=0.7 | 23yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'like a boss' meme | r=-0.82 | 17yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on clothing 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.)