Report an error
Total Runs Scored by Chicago Cubs Team in National League (Central and East Division) correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Global iPod Sales | r=0.87 | 9yrs | No |
Runs scored by the Colorado Rockies | r=0.83 | 30yrs | No |
Wins for the Chicago Cubs | r=0.82 | 48yrs | No |
Runs scored by the Minnesota Twins | r=0.82 | 48yrs | No |
The divorce rate in Connecticut | r=0.8 | 23yrs | Yes! |
Runs scored by the New York Mets | r=0.77 | 48yrs | Yes! |
Runs scored by the Atlanta Braves | r=0.74 | 48yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on clothing | r=0.7 | 23yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut | r=0.69 | 15yrs | No |
Detroit Tigers' number of lost games in a specific season of the American League | r=0.64 | 48yrs | Yes! |
Wins for the Chicago White Sox | r=0.56 | 48yrs | Yes! |
Total Runs Scored by Chicago Cubs Team in National League (Central and East Division) 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.)