Report an error
NCAA Women's Softball Championship (Div I) Final Score Difference Between Winners and Runner-Up correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Petroluem consumption in Germany, West | r=0.85 | 9yrs | Yes! |
The number of fiberglass laminators and fabricators in Minnesota | r=0.75 | 18yrs | Yes! |
The number of library assistants in Maine | r=0.74 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Kerosene used in Barbados | r=0.65 | 40yrs | Yes! |
Air pollution in Deming, New Mexico | r=0.56 | 36yrs | Yes! |
NCAA Women's Softball Championship (Div I) Final Score Difference Between Winners and Runner-Up 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.)