Report an error
Runs scored by the New York Mets correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Central African Republic | r=0.85 | 14yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on clothing | r=0.85 | 23yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on clothin for women | r=0.85 | 23yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on clothing for men | r=0.82 | 23yrs | No |
Total Runs Scored by Chicago Cubs Team in National League (Central and East Division) | r=0.77 | 48yrs | Yes! |
New York Yankees' victories | r=0.58 | 48yrs | No |
Google searches for 'where to buy toilet paper' | r=-0.86 | 20yrs | No |
Runs scored by the New York Mets 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.)