Report an error
Points allowed by the Denver Broncos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the first name Jacoby | r=0.6 | 48yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Kallie | r=0.59 | 48yrs | Yes! |
The distance between Uranus and Mercury | r=0.57 | 49yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Colorado | r=0.55 | 15yrs | No |
The number of movies Robert Downey Jr. appeared in | r=0.53 | 49yrs | No |
How provocative Matt Parker's YouTube video titles are | r=0.5 | 13yrs | No |
The price of gold | r=0.5 | 40yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Egypt | r=0.47 | 42yrs | No |
Points allowed by the Denver Broncos 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.)