Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 5, 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 Chicago Sky

CON 80 – CHI 85

June 5, 2026 · Final

Ice

Best model for this game

Ice
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 CHI

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CON — one dot per model CHI — one dot per model Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Vince Chambers
CON 76.9–81.7 CHI 80.9–85.6 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.3–81.3 CHI 81.3–85.2 Overlap 0.01 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.5–81.1 CHI 81.5–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.9 CHI 81.7–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.7 CHI 81.9–84.6 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-24.72
p-value
8.16e-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.

Reg
CON 76.7–81.8 CHI 80.4–86.0 Overlap 1.4 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 77.1–81.4 CHI 80.8–85.5 Overlap 0.54 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.3–81.1 CHI 81.1–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.5–80.9 CHI 81.3–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.7 CHI 81.5–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-21.74
p-value
1.60e-50

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 77.1–81.5 CHI 81.0–85.5 Overlap 0.59 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.5–81.2 CHI 81.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–81.0 CHI 81.6–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.8 CHI 81.7–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.6 CHI 81.9–84.6 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-25.60
p-value
7.58e-60

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 77.3–81.1 CHI 80.9–85.5 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.6–80.8 CHI 81.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.6 CHI 81.5–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.5 CHI 81.7–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.3 CHI 81.9–84.6 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-28.03
p-value
5.93e-64

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 76.7–81.0 CHI 80.5–85.1 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.1–80.7 CHI 80.9–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.9) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.3–80.4 CHI 81.1–84.5 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.9) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.5–80.3 CHI 81.3–84.3 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.9) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.6–80.1 CHI 81.5–84.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.9) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-26.12
p-value
6.56e-61

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
CON 77.2–81.5 CHI 81.1–85.8 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.5–81.1 CHI 81.5–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.7–80.9 CHI 81.8–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.7 CHI 81.9–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.6 CHI 82.1–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-27.47
p-value
7.54e-64

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
CON 76.9–81.3 CHI 81.2–85.7 Overlap 0.09 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.9–80.8 CHI 81.6–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.4–80.7 CHI 81.8–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.5–80.7 CHI 82.0–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.6–80.6 CHI 82.1–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-26.23
p-value
2.87e-61

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 77.3–81.3 CHI 81.1–85.4 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.6–81.0 CHI 81.5–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.8 CHI 81.7–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.6 CHI 81.9–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–80.5 CHI 82.0–84.5 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.3) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-28.06
p-value
4.34e-65

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 77.0–81.4 CHI 81.1–85.6 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.4–81.1 CHI 81.5–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.6–80.8 CHI 81.7–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.8–80.7 CHI 81.9–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.5 CHI 82.0–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-27.49
p-value
4.88e-64

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
CON 77.5–81.6 CHI 81.3–85.9 Overlap 0.25 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.9–81.2 CHI 81.7–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.1–81.0 CHI 81.9–85.3 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.2–80.9 CHI 82.1–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.4–80.7 CHI 82.2–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-27.72
p-value
4.70e-64

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 77.1–81.7 CHI 80.6–85.8 Overlap 1.1 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 77.4–81.3 CHI 81.0–85.4 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 77.7–81.0 CHI 81.2–85.1 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 77.9–80.9 CHI 81.5–84.9 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.0–80.7 CHI 81.6–84.7 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.4) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-22.82
p-value
6.00e-53

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 Tol Warning
CON 78.0–81.6 CHI 80.9–85.8 Overlap 0.71 pts Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 78.2–81.2 CHI 81.3–85.4 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.5–81.0 CHI 81.6–85.2 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.7–80.8 CHI 81.8–85.0 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CON 78.8–80.8 CHI 81.9–84.8 No overlap Actual: CON 80, CHI 85

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-22.15
p-value
1.98e-51

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 CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.9–81.7 80.9–85.6 0.77 pts — Yes
90% 77.3–81.3 81.3–85.2 0.01 pts — Yes
85% 77.5–81.1 81.5–85.0 — pts — Yes
80% 77.7–80.9 81.7–84.8 — pts — No
75% 77.9–80.7 81.9–84.6 — pts — No
Reg — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.7–81.8 80.4–86.0 1.4 pts — Yes
90% 77.1–81.4 80.8–85.5 0.54 pts — Yes
85% 77.3–81.1 81.1–85.2 — pts — Yes
80% 77.5–80.9 81.3–85.0 — pts — Yes
75% 77.7–80.7 81.5–84.8 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.1–81.5 81.0–85.5 0.59 pts — Yes
90% 77.5–81.2 81.3–85.2 — pts — Yes
85% 77.7–81.0 81.6–84.9 — pts — No
80% 77.9–80.8 81.7–84.7 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.6 81.9–84.6 — pts — No
Kevin — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.3–81.1 80.9–85.5 0.19 pts — Yes
90% 77.6–80.8 81.3–85.2 — pts — Yes
85% 77.8–80.6 81.5–84.9 — pts — No
80% 78.0–80.5 81.7–84.7 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.3 81.9–84.6 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.7–81.0 80.5–85.1 0.51 pts — Yes
90% 77.1–80.7 80.9–84.8 — pts — No
85% 77.3–80.4 81.1–84.5 — pts — No
80% 77.5–80.3 81.3–84.3 — pts — No
75% 77.6–80.1 81.5–84.2 — pts — No
Ice — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.2–81.5 81.1–85.8 0.3 pts — Yes
90% 77.5–81.1 81.5–85.4 — pts — Yes
85% 77.7–80.9 81.8–85.1 — pts — Yes
80% 77.9–80.7 81.9–85.0 — pts — Yes
75% 78.1–80.6 82.1–84.8 — pts — No
Jamal — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.9–81.3 81.2–85.7 0.09 pts Yes Yes
90% 77.9–80.8 81.6–85.3 — pts Yes Yes
85% 78.4–80.7 81.8–85.1 — pts Yes Yes
80% 78.5–80.7 82.0–84.9 — pts Yes No
75% 78.6–80.6 82.1–84.7 — pts Yes No
Jordan — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.3–81.3 81.1–85.4 0.2 pts — Yes
90% 77.6–81.0 81.5–85.1 — pts — Yes
85% 77.8–80.8 81.7–84.9 — pts — No
80% 78.0–80.6 81.9–84.7 — pts — No
75% 78.1–80.5 82.0–84.5 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.0–81.4 81.1–85.6 0.3 pts — Yes
90% 77.4–81.1 81.5–85.2 — pts — Yes
85% 77.6–80.8 81.7–85.0 — pts — Yes
80% 77.8–80.7 81.9–84.8 — pts — No
75% 77.9–80.5 82.0–84.7 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–81.6 81.3–85.9 0.25 pts — Yes
90% 77.9–81.2 81.7–85.5 — pts — Yes
85% 78.1–81.0 81.9–85.3 — pts — Yes
80% 78.2–80.9 82.1–85.1 — pts — Yes
75% 78.4–80.7 82.2–84.9 — pts — No
Lexi — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.1–81.7 80.6–85.8 1.1 pts — Yes
90% 77.4–81.3 81.0–85.4 0.31 pts — Yes
85% 77.7–81.0 81.2–85.1 — pts — Yes
80% 77.9–80.9 81.5–84.9 — pts — No
75% 78.0–80.7 81.6–84.7 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CON at CHI — Actual: CON 80, CHI 85
Level CON range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 78.0–81.6 80.9–85.8 0.71 pts Yes Yes
90% 78.2–81.2 81.3–85.4 — pts Yes Yes
85% 78.5–81.0 81.6–85.2 — pts Yes Yes
80% 78.7–80.8 81.8–85.0 — pts Yes Yes
75% 78.8–80.8 81.9–84.8 — pts Yes No