Report an error
Cleansheets Achieved by Golden Glove Winners in the English Premier League correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Nebraska | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in West Virginia | r=0.87 | 7yrs | No |
The number of agricultural sciences teachers in Kentucky | r=0.82 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Geothermal power generated in Austria | r=0.79 | 14yrs | No |
The number of architects in Puerto Rico | r=0.79 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Intercountry adoptions | r=0.67 | 9yrs | No |
The distance between the Sun and Earth | r=0.48 | 18yrs | No |
Cleansheets Achieved by Golden Glove Winners in the English Premier League 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.)