Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 8, 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

New York Liberty at Connecticut Sun

NY 89 – CON 80

June 8, 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 NY at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

NY — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Vince Chambers
NY 83.8–89.1 CON 77.4–81.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.3–88.7 CON 77.8–81.4 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.4 CON 78.0–81.1 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.8–88.2 CON 78.2–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–88.0 CON 78.3–80.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
42.33
p-value
8.90e-89

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
NY 83.3–89.1 CON 77.1–82.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 83.8–88.6 CON 77.5–81.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.1–88.3 CON 77.8–81.6 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.3–88.1 CON 78.0–81.4 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–87.9 CON 78.2–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
35.16
p-value
2.35e-78

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
NY 83.7–89.3 CON 77.9–81.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 6.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.2–88.9 CON 78.2–81.5 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 6.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.6 CON 78.4–81.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 6.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–88.4 CON 78.6–81.1 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 6.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–88.2 CON 78.7–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 6.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
40.63
p-value
6.94e-82

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
NY 83.8–89.2 CON 77.5–81.6 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.2–88.8 CON 77.9–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.5 CON 78.1–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–88.3 CON 78.2–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–88.1 CON 78.4–80.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
42.68
p-value
4.70e-87

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 Tol Warning
NY 82.7–87.6 CON 77.7–80.4 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 85.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 5.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 83.1–87.2 CON 78.0–80.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 85.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 5.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 83.3–86.9 CON 78.2–80.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 85.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 5.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 83.5–86.7 CON 78.3–80.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 85.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 5.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 83.7–86.6 CON 78.5–80.1 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 85.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.2) — by 5.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
41.26
p-value
9.28e-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.

Ice
NY 84.2–89.0 CON 77.5–81.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 7.0 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.6–88.6 CON 77.8–81.4 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 7.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.8–88.3 CON 78.0–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 7.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 85.0–88.1 CON 78.2–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 7.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 85.2–88.0 CON 78.3–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 7.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
45.28
p-value
1.52e-94

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
NY 84.1–88.7 CON 77.7–81.5 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.4 CON 78.0–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–88.1 CON 78.2–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–87.9 CON 78.4–80.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 85.1–87.8 CON 78.5–80.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
47.44
p-value
2.48e-95

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
NY 83.5–89.1 CON 77.7–81.5 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.0–88.6 CON 78.0–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.3–88.4 CON 78.2–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.1 CON 78.3–80.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–87.9 CON 78.5–80.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
41.11
p-value
1.13e-81

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
NY 83.5–89.0 CON 77.9–81.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.0–88.6 CON 78.1–81.1 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.2–88.3 CON 78.3–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.1 CON 78.5–80.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–87.9 CON 78.6–80.6 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
42.29
p-value
5.24e-81

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
NY 84.1–88.6 CON 77.5–81.6 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.3 CON 77.9–81.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–88.0 CON 78.1–81.1 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–87.8 CON 78.2–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 85.0–87.7 CON 78.4–80.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.6) — by 6.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
45.98
p-value
5.74e-95

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
NY 83.9–88.8 CON 77.8–81.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.3–88.4 CON 78.1–81.4 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.5–88.1 CON 78.3–81.2 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.7–87.9 CON 78.5–81.0 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 84.9–87.8 CON 78.6–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 6.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
43.32
p-value
1.01e-88

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
NY 81.3–87.7 CON 77.5–81.5 Overlap 0.22 pts Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 84.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 81.8–87.2 CON 77.8–81.3 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 84.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 82.1–86.8 CON 77.9–80.9 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 84.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 82.4–86.6 CON 78.0–80.8 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 84.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

NY 82.6–86.4 CON 78.3–80.7 No overlap Actual: NY 89, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 84.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.5) — by 4.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
24.61
p-value
4.22e-56

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 — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–89.1 77.4–81.7 — pts — Yes
90% 84.3–88.7 77.8–81.4 — pts — No
85% 84.5–88.4 78.0–81.1 — pts — No
80% 84.8–88.2 78.2–81.0 — pts — No
75% 84.9–88.0 78.3–80.8 — pts — No
Reg — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.3–89.1 77.1–82.3 — pts — Yes
90% 83.8–88.6 77.5–81.8 — pts — No
85% 84.1–88.3 77.8–81.6 — pts — No
80% 84.3–88.1 78.0–81.4 — pts — No
75% 84.5–87.9 78.2–81.2 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–89.3 77.9–81.8 — pts — Yes
90% 84.2–88.9 78.2–81.5 — pts — No
85% 84.5–88.6 78.4–81.3 — pts — No
80% 84.7–88.4 78.6–81.1 — pts — No
75% 84.9–88.2 78.7–81.0 — pts — No
Kevin — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–89.2 77.5–81.6 — pts — Yes
90% 84.2–88.8 77.9–81.2 — pts — No
85% 84.5–88.5 78.1–81.0 — pts — No
80% 84.7–88.3 78.2–80.9 — pts — No
75% 84.9–88.1 78.4–80.7 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.7–87.6 77.7–80.4 — pts Yes No
90% 83.1–87.2 78.0–80.3 — pts Yes No
85% 83.3–86.9 78.2–80.2 — pts Yes No
80% 83.5–86.7 78.3–80.2 — pts Yes No
75% 83.7–86.6 78.5–80.1 — pts Yes No
Ice — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–89.0 77.5–81.7 — pts — Yes
90% 84.6–88.6 77.8–81.4 — pts — No
85% 84.8–88.3 78.0–81.2 — pts — No
80% 85.0–88.1 78.2–81.0 — pts — No
75% 85.2–88.0 78.3–80.9 — pts — No
Jamal — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.1–88.7 77.7–81.5 — pts — No
90% 84.5–88.4 78.0–81.2 — pts — No
85% 84.7–88.1 78.2–81.0 — pts — No
80% 84.9–87.9 78.4–80.8 — pts — No
75% 85.1–87.8 78.5–80.7 — pts — No
Jordan — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–89.1 77.7–81.5 — pts — Yes
90% 84.0–88.6 78.0–81.2 — pts — No
85% 84.3–88.4 78.2–81.0 — pts — No
80% 84.5–88.1 78.3–80.8 — pts — No
75% 84.7–87.9 78.5–80.7 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–89.0 77.9–81.3 — pts — Yes
90% 84.0–88.6 78.1–81.1 — pts — No
85% 84.2–88.3 78.3–80.9 — pts — No
80% 84.5–88.1 78.5–80.7 — pts — No
75% 84.7–87.9 78.6–80.6 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.1–88.6 77.5–81.6 — pts — No
90% 84.5–88.3 77.9–81.3 — pts — No
85% 84.7–88.0 78.1–81.1 — pts — No
80% 84.9–87.8 78.2–80.9 — pts — No
75% 85.0–87.7 78.4–80.8 — pts — No
Lexi — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–88.8 77.8–81.7 — pts — No
90% 84.3–88.4 78.1–81.4 — pts — No
85% 84.5–88.1 78.3–81.2 — pts — No
80% 84.7–87.9 78.5–81.0 — pts — No
75% 84.9–87.8 78.6–80.9 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — NY at CON — Actual: NY 89, CON 80
Level NY range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–87.7 77.5–81.5 0.22 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–87.2 77.8–81.3 — pts Yes No
85% 82.1–86.8 77.9–80.9 — pts Yes No
80% 82.4–86.6 78.0–80.8 — pts Yes No
75% 82.6–86.4 78.3–80.7 — pts Yes No