Report an error
Adrian Wilson's tackle count correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of college computer science teachers in North Carolina | r=0.98 | 10yrs | No |
The number of legislators in Colorado | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
The number of opticians in Ohio | r=0.93 | 10yrs | No |
The number of forest conservation technicians in Alaska | r=0.92 | 10yrs | No |
The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Utah | r=0.91 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Adrian Wilson's tackle count 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.)