Report an error
Ticket sales for Boston Red Sox games correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Organic Food Sales Volume in the United States | r=0.95 | 13yrs | No |
Electricity generation in Hong Kong | r=0.92 | 40yrs | No |
Fossil fuel use in Hong Kong | r=0.92 | 40yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Iliana | r=0.87 | 45yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Julian | r=0.87 | 45yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Maxwell | r=0.83 | 45yrs | No |
Number of households headed by single fathers in the United States | r=0.8 | 30yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Alexa | r=0.79 | 45yrs | No |
Air quality in Boston | r=0.73 | 40yrs | No |
The number of movies Samuel L. Jackson appeared in | r=0.72 | 43yrs | No |
The number of movies Nicolas Cage appeared in | r=0.52 | 40yrs | No |
Air pollution in Boston | r=-0.73 | 40yrs | No |
Ticket sales for Boston Red Sox games 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.)