Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 2, 2026
Almanac — change team skin

Repaints the site's chrome in a team's colours. Predictions, grades and the colours on each game card are unchanged.

Almanac
NBA
WNBA
Log in Join

← Back to WNBA

Chicago Sky at Washington Mystics

CHI 72 – WAS 90

June 2, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 0-12
Prediction ranges

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

Confidence level for CHI at WAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model WAS — one dot per model Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Vince Chambers
CHI 81.1–85.5 WAS 78.7–83.3 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.5–85.1 WAS 79.1–82.9 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.7–84.9 WAS 79.3–82.7 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.9–84.7 WAS 79.5–82.5 Overlap 0.61 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.0–84.6 WAS 79.7–82.3 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
15.39
p-value
3.83e-34

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Reg
CHI 80.7–85.9 WAS 78.0–83.7 Overlap 3.03 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 81.1–85.5 WAS 78.4–83.2 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.4–85.2 WAS 78.7–82.9 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.6–85.0 WAS 79.0–82.7 Overlap 1.12 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.8–84.9 WAS 79.1–82.5 Overlap 0.75 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
13.40
p-value
1.92e-28

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Dr. Wallace Tol Warning
CHI 81.3–85.6 WAS 78.1–83.4 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.8–85.2 WAS 78.5–83.0 Overlap 1.16 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 82.1–84.9 WAS 78.8–82.7 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.3–84.7 WAS 79.0–82.5 Overlap 0.15 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.5–84.5 WAS 79.2–82.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.7) — by 2.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
15.70
p-value
6.06e-35

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Kevin
CHI 81.4–85.5 WAS 78.8–83.2 Overlap 1.77 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.8–85.1 WAS 79.1–82.9 Overlap 1.09 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 82.0–84.9 WAS 79.4–82.6 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.1–84.8 WAS 79.5–82.4 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.3–84.6 WAS 79.7–82.3 Overlap 0.02 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
17.29
p-value
2.52e-39

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Dr. Lila Shah
CHI 80.2–84.6 WAS 78.1–83.0 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–84.2 WAS 78.5–82.6 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–84.0 WAS 78.7–82.3 Overlap 1.52 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.0–83.8 WAS 78.9–82.1 Overlap 1.15 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–83.7 WAS 79.1–82.0 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
12.05
p-value
1.51e-24

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Ice Tol Warning
CHI 81.3–85.3 WAS 79.3–83.7 Overlap 2.36 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.6–85.0 WAS 79.4–82.6 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.8–84.8 WAS 79.4–82.4 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.0–84.6 WAS 79.6–82.4 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.1–84.5 WAS 79.8–82.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
15.82
p-value
6.04e-35

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Jamal Tol Warning
CHI 80.9–84.8 WAS 78.8–82.9 Overlap 1.99 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–84.7 WAS 79.2–82.5 Overlap 1.35 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.6–84.6 WAS 79.4–82.3 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.9–84.5 WAS 79.5–82.2 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.1–84.4 WAS 79.7–82.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
15.86
p-value
3.43e-35

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Jordan
CHI 81.3–85.5 WAS 78.6–83.3 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.6–85.1 WAS 79.0–82.9 Overlap 1.31 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.8–84.9 WAS 79.2–82.7 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.0–84.7 WAS 79.4–82.5 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.2–84.6 WAS 79.6–82.3 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
16.23
p-value
2.55e-36

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
CHI 81.1–85.5 WAS 78.5–83.2 Overlap 2.05 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.5–85.2 WAS 78.9–82.8 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.7–84.9 WAS 79.1–82.6 Overlap 0.85 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.9–84.7 WAS 79.3–82.4 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.0–84.6 WAS 79.5–82.2 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
16.26
p-value
1.45e-36

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Maya Jefferson
CHI 81.7–85.3 WAS 78.8–83.3 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 82.0–85.0 WAS 79.1–82.9 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.2–84.8 WAS 79.4–82.7 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.3–84.7 WAS 79.5–82.5 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 82.4–84.6 WAS 79.7–82.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.0) — by 2.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
18.04
p-value
8.12e-41

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Lexi
CHI 81.0–85.5 WAS 78.4–83.3 Overlap 2.33 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.4–85.2 WAS 78.8–82.9 Overlap 1.57 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.6–84.9 WAS 79.0–82.7 Overlap 1.07 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.8–84.8 WAS 79.2–82.5 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.9–84.6 WAS 79.4–82.3 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 80.9) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
15.12
p-value
2.50e-33

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
CHI 82.1–86.8 WAS 79.2–85.6 Overlap 3.57 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 84.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 82.4–86.4 WAS 79.7–85.1 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 84.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 82.7–86.2 WAS 80.0–84.8 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 84.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 82.9–86.0 WAS 80.3–84.5 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 84.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.0–85.8 WAS 80.5–84.3 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 84.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
10.63
p-value
3.07e-20

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

View as table
Vince Chambers — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–85.5 78.7–83.3 2.14 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.1 79.1–82.9 1.43 pts — No
85% 81.7–84.9 79.3–82.7 0.96 pts — No
80% 81.9–84.7 79.5–82.5 0.61 pts — No
75% 82.0–84.6 79.7–82.3 0.31 pts — No
Reg — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–85.9 78.0–83.7 3.03 pts — No
90% 81.1–85.5 78.4–83.2 2.14 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.2 78.7–82.9 1.56 pts — No
80% 81.6–85.0 79.0–82.7 1.12 pts — No
75% 81.8–84.9 79.1–82.5 0.75 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.6 78.1–83.4 2.14 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–85.2 78.5–83.0 1.16 pts Yes No
85% 82.1–84.9 78.8–82.7 0.6 pts Yes No
80% 82.3–84.7 79.0–82.5 0.15 pts Yes No
75% 82.5–84.5 79.2–82.3 — pts Yes No
Kevin — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–85.5 78.8–83.2 1.77 pts — No
90% 81.8–85.1 79.1–82.9 1.09 pts — No
85% 82.0–84.9 79.4–82.6 0.65 pts — No
80% 82.1–84.8 79.5–82.4 0.31 pts — No
75% 82.3–84.6 79.7–82.3 0.02 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–84.6 78.1–83.0 2.74 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.2 78.5–82.6 2.0 pts — No
85% 80.8–84.0 78.7–82.3 1.52 pts — No
80% 81.0–83.8 78.9–82.1 1.15 pts — No
75% 81.1–83.7 79.1–82.0 0.84 pts — No
Ice — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.3 79.3–83.7 2.36 pts Yes No
90% 81.6–85.0 79.4–82.6 0.96 pts Yes No
85% 81.8–84.8 79.4–82.4 0.6 pts Yes No
80% 82.0–84.6 79.6–82.4 0.37 pts Yes No
75% 82.1–84.5 79.8–82.1 — pts Yes No
Jamal — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.9–84.8 78.8–82.9 1.99 pts Yes No
90% 81.2–84.7 79.2–82.5 1.35 pts Yes No
85% 81.6–84.6 79.4–82.3 0.74 pts Yes No
80% 81.9–84.5 79.5–82.2 0.3 pts Yes No
75% 82.1–84.4 79.7–82.0 — pts Yes No
Jordan — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.5 78.6–83.3 2.02 pts — No
90% 81.6–85.1 79.0–82.9 1.31 pts — No
85% 81.8–84.9 79.2–82.7 0.84 pts — No
80% 82.0–84.7 79.4–82.5 0.48 pts — No
75% 82.2–84.6 79.6–82.3 0.18 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–85.5 78.5–83.2 2.05 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.2 78.9–82.8 1.32 pts — No
85% 81.7–84.9 79.1–82.6 0.85 pts — No
80% 81.9–84.7 79.3–82.4 0.49 pts — No
75% 82.0–84.6 79.5–82.2 0.18 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–85.3 78.8–83.3 1.59 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.0 79.1–82.9 0.94 pts — No
85% 82.2–84.8 79.4–82.7 0.51 pts — No
80% 82.3–84.7 79.5–82.5 0.18 pts — No
75% 82.4–84.6 79.7–82.3 — pts — No
Lexi — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–85.5 78.4–83.3 2.33 pts — No
90% 81.4–85.2 78.8–82.9 1.57 pts — No
85% 81.6–84.9 79.0–82.7 1.07 pts — No
80% 81.8–84.8 79.2–82.5 0.69 pts — No
75% 81.9–84.6 79.4–82.3 0.37 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at WAS — Actual: CHI 72, WAS 90
Level CHI range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.1–86.8 79.2–85.6 3.57 pts — No
90% 82.4–86.4 79.7–85.1 2.67 pts — No
85% 82.7–86.2 80.0–84.8 2.09 pts — No
80% 82.9–86.0 80.3–84.5 1.64 pts — No
75% 83.0–85.8 80.5–84.3 1.26 pts — No