Report an error
Runs scored by the Chicago White Sox correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? | 
| Liquefied petroleum gas used in Central African Republic | r=0.89 | 14yrs | No | 
| Geothermal power generated in Austria | r=0.8 | 17yrs | No | 
| Gasoline pumped in Luxembourg | r=0.61 | 43yrs | No | 
| Petroluem consumption in Greece | r=0.55 | 43yrs | No | 
| British Open Golf Championship winner's score | r=0.53 | 48yrs | No | 
| Milk consumption | r=0.45 | 32yrs | No | 
| Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' | r=-0.82 | 20yrs | No | 
Runs scored by the Chicago White Sox 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.)
