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

Connecticut Sun at Atlanta Dream

CON 75 – ATL 91

June 2, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 12-0
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 CON at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CON — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Vince Chambers
CON 77.1–81.5 ATL 81.9–86.0 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.4–81.1 ATL 82.3–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.9 ATL 82.5–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 ATL 82.6–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.6 ATL 82.8–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-32.75
p-value
1.35e-75

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
CON 77.2–81.5 ATL 81.4–86.8 Overlap 0.11 pts Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.5–81.2 ATL 81.8–86.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.9 ATL 82.1–86.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.8 ATL 82.3–85.9 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.6 ATL 82.5–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-28.91
p-value
3.47e-66

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
CON 77.5–81.2 ATL 81.7–86.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.9 ATL 82.1–85.8 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.7 ATL 82.3–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.6 ATL 82.5–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.2–80.4 ATL 82.6–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-33.50
p-value
3.04e-76

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
CON 77.6–81.1 ATL 82.1–86.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.8 ATL 82.4–85.8 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.6 ATL 82.6–85.6 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.2–80.5 ATL 82.8–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.3–80.3 ATL 82.9–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-37.60
p-value
1.53e-83

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
CON 76.6–81.0 ATL 81.8–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 4.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.0–80.6 ATL 82.1–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 4.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.2–80.4 ATL 82.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 4.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.4–80.2 ATL 82.5–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 4.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.5–80.1 ATL 82.6–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 4.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-35.48
p-value
1.90e-80

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
CON 77.3–81.2 ATL 82.8–85.8 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.6–80.9 ATL 82.9–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 ATL 83.1–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.5 ATL 83.1–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.4 ATL 83.3–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-38.65
p-value
1.53e-86

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
CON 77.1–81.4 ATL 81.8–86.0 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.4–81.1 ATL 82.2–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.8 ATL 82.4–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 ATL 82.6–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.5 ATL 82.7–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-32.86
p-value
5.13e-76

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
CON 77.5–81.0 ATL 82.0–85.8 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 ATL 82.3–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.5 ATL 82.5–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.4 ATL 82.6–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.2–80.3 ATL 82.8–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-37.68
p-value
1.68e-84

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
CON 77.2–81.5 ATL 81.9–86.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.6–81.2 ATL 82.2–85.8 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–81.0 ATL 82.4–85.6 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.8 ATL 82.6–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.7 ATL 82.7–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-31.88
p-value
4.31e-74

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 Tol Warning
CON 77.5–80.5 ATL 82.1–85.9 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.3 ATL 82.4–85.6 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.2 ATL 82.6–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.1 ATL 82.7–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.3–80.0 ATL 82.9–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-37.76
p-value
5.52e-85

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
CON 77.3–81.2 ATL 81.8–86.1 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.6–80.9 ATL 82.2–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 ATL 82.4–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.5 ATL 82.6–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.4 ATL 82.7–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-34.67
p-value
3.92e-79

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
CON 77.6–82.0 ATL 81.2–86.4 Overlap 0.79 pts Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 78.0–81.7 ATL 81.6–85.9 Overlap 0.03 pts Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 78.2–81.4 ATL 81.9–85.7 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.4–81.2 ATL 82.1–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.5–81.1 ATL 82.3–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 75, ATL 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-24.76
p-value
6.06e-58

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 — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.1–81.5 81.9–86.0 — pts — No
90% 77.4–81.1 82.3–85.7 — pts — No
85% 77.7–80.9 82.5–85.5 — pts — No
80% 77.8–80.7 82.6–85.3 — pts — No
75% 78.0–80.6 82.8–85.2 — pts — No
Reg — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.2–81.5 81.4–86.8 0.11 pts — No
90% 77.5–81.2 81.8–86.4 — pts — No
85% 77.8–80.9 82.1–86.1 — pts — No
80% 77.9–80.8 82.3–85.9 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.6 82.5–85.7 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–81.2 81.7–86.1 — pts — No
90% 77.8–80.9 82.1–85.8 — pts — No
85% 78.0–80.7 82.3–85.5 — pts — No
80% 78.1–80.6 82.5–85.4 — pts — No
75% 78.2–80.4 82.6–85.2 — pts — No
Kevin — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.6–81.1 82.1–86.2 — pts — No
90% 77.9–80.8 82.4–85.8 — pts — No
85% 78.1–80.6 82.6–85.6 — pts — No
80% 78.2–80.5 82.8–85.5 — pts — No
75% 78.3–80.3 82.9–85.3 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.6–81.0 81.8–85.7 — pts — No
90% 77.0–80.6 82.1–85.4 — pts — No
85% 77.2–80.4 82.3–85.2 — pts — No
80% 77.4–80.2 82.5–85.0 — pts — No
75% 77.5–80.1 82.6–84.9 — pts — No
Ice — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.3–81.2 82.8–85.8 — pts Yes No
90% 77.6–80.9 82.9–85.4 — pts Yes No
85% 77.8–80.7 83.1–85.3 — pts Yes No
80% 78.0–80.5 83.1–85.1 — pts Yes No
75% 78.1–80.4 83.3–85.0 — pts Yes No
Jamal — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.1–81.4 81.8–86.0 — pts — No
90% 77.4–81.1 82.2–85.7 — pts — No
85% 77.7–80.8 82.4–85.5 — pts — No
80% 77.8–80.7 82.6–85.3 — pts — No
75% 78.0–80.5 82.7–85.2 — pts — No
Jordan — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–81.0 82.0–85.8 — pts — No
90% 77.8–80.7 82.3–85.5 — pts — No
85% 78.0–80.5 82.5–85.3 — pts — No
80% 78.1–80.4 82.6–85.1 — pts — No
75% 78.2–80.3 82.8–85.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.2–81.5 81.9–86.1 — pts — No
90% 77.6–81.2 82.2–85.8 — pts — No
85% 77.8–81.0 82.4–85.6 — pts — No
80% 78.0–80.8 82.6–85.4 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.7 82.7–85.3 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–80.5 82.1–85.9 — pts Yes No
90% 77.7–80.3 82.4–85.6 — pts Yes No
85% 77.8–80.2 82.6–85.4 — pts Yes No
80% 78.0–80.1 82.7–85.2 — pts Yes No
75% 78.3–80.0 82.9–85.1 — pts Yes No
Lexi — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.3–81.2 81.8–86.1 — pts — No
90% 77.6–80.9 82.2–85.7 — pts — No
85% 77.8–80.7 82.4–85.5 — pts — No
80% 78.0–80.5 82.6–85.3 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.4 82.7–85.2 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CON at ATL — Actual: CON 75, ATL 91
Level CON range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.6–82.0 81.2–86.4 0.79 pts — No
90% 78.0–81.7 81.6–85.9 0.03 pts — No
85% 78.2–81.4 81.9–85.7 — pts — No
80% 78.4–81.2 82.1–85.5 — pts — No
75% 78.5–81.1 82.3–85.3 — pts — No