Report an error
Detroit Tigers' number of lost games in a specific season of the American League correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air quality in Staunton, Virginia | r=0.88 | 10yrs | No |
The number of librarians in Rhode Island | r=0.86 | 16yrs | Yes! |
The number of dining room and cafeteria attendants in Maryland | r=0.8 | 20yrs | Yes! |
Total Runs Scored by Chicago Cubs Team in National League (Central and East Division) | r=0.64 | 48yrs | Yes! |
US Hospital Occupancy Rate | r=0.56 | 18yrs | No |
Detroit Tigers' number of lost games in a specific season of the American 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.)