Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 9, 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

Dallas Wings at Minnesota Lynx

DAL 76 – MIN 100

June 9, 2026 · Final

Darren "Dimes" Lin

Best model for this game

Darren "Dimes" Lin
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 DAL at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

DAL — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
DAL 82.8–87.7 MIN 84.2–89.2 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 83.1–87.0 MIN 84.6–88.8 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.2–86.3 MIN 84.9–88.6 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.3–86.0 MIN 85.1–88.4 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.4–86.0 MIN 85.3–88.2 Overlap 0.71 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-11.61
p-value
4.34e-23

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
DAL 81.8–87.7 MIN 83.6–89.3 Overlap 4.13 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 82.3–87.2 MIN 84.0–88.8 Overlap 3.19 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 82.6–86.9 MIN 84.3–88.5 Overlap 2.58 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.8–86.7 MIN 84.6–88.3 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.0–86.5 MIN 84.8–88.1 Overlap 1.72 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-8.51
p-value
1.09e-14

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
DAL 82.1–86.7 MIN 84.1–88.3 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.5–86.3 MIN 84.3–88.2 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.7–86.1 MIN 84.9–88.1 Overlap 1.15 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.9–85.9 MIN 85.1–88.1 Overlap 0.82 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.0–85.7 MIN 85.3–88.0 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-12.99
p-value
9.95e-27

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
DAL 82.0–87.1 MIN 84.2–89.2 Overlap 2.86 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.4–86.7 MIN 84.6–88.8 Overlap 2.05 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.7–86.4 MIN 84.9–88.6 Overlap 1.52 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.9–86.2 MIN 85.1–88.4 Overlap 1.11 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.1–86.0 MIN 85.3–88.2 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-12.67
p-value
4.23e-26

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
DAL 81.2–85.6 MIN 83.5–87.8 Overlap 2.08 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 83.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 81.6–85.2 MIN 83.9–87.5 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 83.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 81.8–85.0 MIN 84.1–87.3 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 83.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 82.0–84.8 MIN 84.3–87.1 Overlap 0.57 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 83.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 82.1–84.7 MIN 84.4–86.9 Overlap 0.28 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 83.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-15.24
p-value
3.18e-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.

Ice
DAL 81.6–86.9 MIN 83.8–88.9 Overlap 3.17 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 82.0–86.5 MIN 84.2–88.5 Overlap 2.33 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.3–86.2 MIN 84.4–88.2 Overlap 1.78 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.5–86.0 MIN 84.6–88.0 Overlap 1.36 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.7–85.8 MIN 84.8–87.8 Overlap 1.01 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-11.51
p-value
7.63e-23

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
DAL 82.2–86.6 MIN 84.0–88.9 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.6–86.2 MIN 84.4–88.5 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.8–86.0 MIN 84.7–88.2 Overlap 1.33 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.0–85.8 MIN 84.9–88.0 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.1–85.7 MIN 85.0–87.9 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-13.01
p-value
5.71e-27

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
DAL 82.3–86.4 MIN 84.0–88.7 Overlap 2.39 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.6–86.1 MIN 84.4–88.3 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.8–85.9 MIN 84.6–88.1 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.0–85.7 MIN 84.8–87.9 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.1–85.6 MIN 85.0–87.7 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-13.28
p-value
1.09e-27

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
DAL 82.0–86.9 MIN 84.5–89.0 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.4–86.5 MIN 84.8–88.7 Overlap 1.65 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.6–86.2 MIN 85.1–88.4 Overlap 1.16 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.8–86.0 MIN 85.3–88.2 Overlap 0.78 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.0–85.9 MIN 85.4–88.1 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-14.27
p-value
1.63e-30

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
DAL 82.1–86.8 MIN 83.7–89.4 Overlap 3.06 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 82.5–86.4 MIN 84.2–88.9 Overlap 2.23 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.7–86.2 MIN 84.5–88.6 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.9–86.0 MIN 84.7–88.4 Overlap 1.28 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.1–85.8 MIN 84.9–88.2 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-11.81
p-value
1.81e-23

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
DAL 81.7–87.2 MIN 84.0–89.3 Overlap 3.22 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

DAL 82.1–86.8 MIN 84.4–88.9 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.4–86.5 MIN 84.7–88.6 Overlap 1.77 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.6–86.3 MIN 84.9–88.4 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.8–86.1 MIN 85.1–88.2 Overlap 0.97 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-11.92
p-value
5.57e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
DAL 82.1–86.8 MIN 83.9–88.6 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.5–86.4 MIN 84.2–88.3 Overlap 2.19 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.7–86.2 MIN 84.5–88.0 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 82.9–86.0 MIN 84.7–87.8 Overlap 1.31 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

DAL 83.1–85.8 MIN 84.8–87.7 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-11.02
p-value
1.78e-21

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 — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.8–87.7 84.2–89.2 3.46 pts Yes No
90% 83.1–87.0 84.6–88.8 2.41 pts Yes No
85% 83.2–86.3 84.9–88.6 1.43 pts Yes No
80% 83.3–86.0 85.1–88.4 0.93 pts Yes No
75% 83.4–86.0 85.3–88.2 0.71 pts Yes No
Reg — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.8–87.7 83.6–89.3 4.13 pts — No
90% 82.3–87.2 84.0–88.8 3.19 pts — No
85% 82.6–86.9 84.3–88.5 2.58 pts — No
80% 82.8–86.7 84.6–88.3 2.11 pts — No
75% 83.0–86.5 84.8–88.1 1.72 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.1–86.7 84.1–88.3 2.55 pts Yes No
90% 82.5–86.3 84.3–88.2 2.0 pts Yes No
85% 82.7–86.1 84.9–88.1 1.15 pts Yes No
80% 82.9–85.9 85.1–88.1 0.82 pts Yes No
75% 83.0–85.7 85.3–88.0 0.42 pts Yes No
Kevin — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–87.1 84.2–89.2 2.86 pts — No
90% 82.4–86.7 84.6–88.8 2.05 pts — No
85% 82.7–86.4 84.9–88.6 1.52 pts — No
80% 82.9–86.2 85.1–88.4 1.11 pts — No
75% 83.1–86.0 85.3–88.2 0.77 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–85.6 83.5–87.8 2.08 pts — No
90% 81.6–85.2 83.9–87.5 1.38 pts — No
85% 81.8–85.0 84.1–87.3 0.93 pts — No
80% 82.0–84.8 84.3–87.1 0.57 pts — No
75% 82.1–84.7 84.4–86.9 0.28 pts — No
Ice — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–86.9 83.8–88.9 3.17 pts — No
90% 82.0–86.5 84.2–88.5 2.33 pts — No
85% 82.3–86.2 84.4–88.2 1.78 pts — No
80% 82.5–86.0 84.6–88.0 1.36 pts — No
75% 82.7–85.8 84.8–87.8 1.01 pts — No
Jamal — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.2–86.6 84.0–88.9 2.55 pts — No
90% 82.6–86.2 84.4–88.5 1.81 pts — No
85% 82.8–86.0 84.7–88.2 1.33 pts — No
80% 83.0–85.8 84.9–88.0 0.96 pts — No
75% 83.1–85.7 85.0–87.9 0.65 pts — No
Jordan — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–86.4 84.0–88.7 2.39 pts — No
90% 82.6–86.1 84.4–88.3 1.68 pts — No
85% 82.8–85.9 84.6–88.1 1.22 pts — No
80% 83.0–85.7 84.8–87.9 0.87 pts — No
75% 83.1–85.6 85.0–87.7 0.58 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–86.9 84.5–89.0 2.41 pts — No
90% 82.4–86.5 84.8–88.7 1.65 pts — No
85% 82.6–86.2 85.1–88.4 1.16 pts — No
80% 82.8–86.0 85.3–88.2 0.78 pts — No
75% 83.0–85.9 85.4–88.1 0.46 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.1–86.8 83.7–89.4 3.06 pts — No
90% 82.5–86.4 84.2–88.9 2.23 pts — No
85% 82.7–86.2 84.5–88.6 1.69 pts — No
80% 82.9–86.0 84.7–88.4 1.28 pts — No
75% 83.1–85.8 84.9–88.2 0.93 pts — No
Lexi — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–87.2 84.0–89.3 3.22 pts — No
90% 82.1–86.8 84.4–88.9 2.34 pts — No
85% 82.4–86.5 84.7–88.6 1.77 pts — No
80% 82.6–86.3 84.9–88.4 1.34 pts — No
75% 82.8–86.1 85.1–88.2 0.97 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — DAL at MIN — Actual: DAL 76, MIN 100
Level DAL range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.1–86.8 83.9–88.6 2.95 pts — No
90% 82.5–86.4 84.2–88.3 2.19 pts — No
85% 82.7–86.2 84.5–88.0 1.69 pts — No
80% 82.9–86.0 84.7–87.8 1.31 pts — No
75% 83.1–85.8 84.8–87.7 0.99 pts — No