Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 12, 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

Toronto Tempo at Washington Mystics

TOR 85 – WAS 86

June 12, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
All models: 0-12
Prediction ranges

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

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

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

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

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

Confidence level for TOR at WAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

TOR — one dot per model WAS — one dot per model Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Vince Chambers
TOR 83.0–88.3 WAS 80.7–85.0 Overlap 1.98 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.9 WAS 81.0–84.6 Overlap 1.21 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.7–87.6 WAS 81.2–84.4 Overlap 0.7 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.9–87.4 WAS 81.4–84.2 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 84.1–87.2 WAS 81.5–84.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
17.09
p-value
1.26e-37

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
TOR 82.6–88.2 WAS 79.7–85.1 Overlap 2.46 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.1–87.7 WAS 80.1–84.6 Overlap 1.58 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.4 WAS 80.4–84.4 Overlap 1.0 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.6–87.2 WAS 80.6–84.1 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.0 WAS 80.8–84.0 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
16.08
p-value
1.56e-35

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

Dr. Wallace Tol Warning
TOR 82.5–88.4 WAS 80.6–85.1 Overlap 2.53 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.0–88.0 WAS 81.2–84.5 Overlap 1.51 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.3–87.7 WAS 81.3–84.2 Overlap 0.89 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.6–87.4 WAS 81.4–84.1 Overlap 0.54 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.2 WAS 81.5–84.0 Overlap 0.26 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
13.74
p-value
5.05e-29

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
TOR 82.6–88.1 WAS 80.3–85.0 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.1–87.7 WAS 80.7–84.6 Overlap 1.58 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.4 WAS 80.9–84.4 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.6–87.2 WAS 81.1–84.2 Overlap 0.63 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.0 WAS 81.3–84.0 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
15.45
p-value
1.36e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah Tol Warning
TOR 81.7–88.5 WAS 79.8–82.9 Overlap 1.24 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.4) — by 3.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 82.2–87.9 WAS 79.9–82.7 Overlap 0.52 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.4) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 82.6–87.6 WAS 80.1–82.7 Overlap 0.1 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.4) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 82.8–87.3 WAS 80.2–82.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.4) — by 3.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 83.1–87.1 WAS 80.3–82.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.4) — by 3.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
18.30
p-value
2.15e-39

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

Ice
TOR 82.4–88.6 WAS 80.2–85.4 Overlap 3.04 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.9–88.1 WAS 80.6–85.0 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.2–87.8 WAS 80.9–84.7 Overlap 1.51 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.6 WAS 81.1–84.5 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.7–87.3 WAS 81.2–84.3 Overlap 0.66 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
13.74
p-value
8.18e-29

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
TOR 82.8–88.1 WAS 80.6–85.1 Overlap 2.23 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.3–87.7 WAS 80.9–84.7 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.4 WAS 81.2–84.5 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.2 WAS 81.3–84.3 Overlap 0.54 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.9–87.0 WAS 81.5–84.1 Overlap 0.21 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
15.85
p-value
1.27e-34

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

Jordan
TOR 82.6–88.4 WAS 79.9–85.6 Overlap 2.97 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.1–87.9 WAS 80.4–85.1 Overlap 2.06 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.6 WAS 80.7–84.8 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.6–87.4 WAS 80.9–84.6 Overlap 1.0 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.8–87.2 WAS 81.1–84.4 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
13.94
p-value
1.22e-29

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
TOR 83.0–88.1 WAS 80.1–85.3 Overlap 2.29 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.7 WAS 80.6–84.8 Overlap 1.47 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.6–87.4 WAS 80.8–84.6 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.2 WAS 81.0–84.4 Overlap 0.52 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 84.0–87.0 WAS 81.2–84.2 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
16.13
p-value
1.14e-35

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

Maya Jefferson
TOR 82.6–88.4 WAS 80.2–84.9 Overlap 2.32 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 2.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.1–87.9 WAS 80.6–84.5 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 2.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.6 WAS 80.8–84.3 Overlap 0.92 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.6–87.4 WAS 81.0–84.1 Overlap 0.5 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.8–87.2 WAS 81.2–83.9 Overlap 0.15 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
16.23
p-value
2.05e-35

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

Lexi
TOR 82.5–88.6 WAS 80.5–85.0 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.0–88.1 WAS 80.9–84.6 Overlap 1.65 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.3–87.8 WAS 81.1–84.4 Overlap 1.1 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.5 WAS 81.3–84.2 Overlap 0.68 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 83.7–87.3 WAS 81.4–84.1 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
15.16
p-value
4.22e-32

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
TOR 82.8–88.4 WAS 81.5–86.3 Overlap 3.59 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 83.2–88.0 WAS 81.8–85.9 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.7 WAS 82.1–85.7 Overlap 2.18 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.7–87.5 WAS 82.3–85.5 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.9–87.3 WAS 82.5–85.3 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
9.35
p-value
7.50e-17

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 — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–88.3 80.7–85.0 1.98 pts — No
90% 83.4–87.9 81.0–84.6 1.21 pts — No
85% 83.7–87.6 81.2–84.4 0.7 pts — No
80% 83.9–87.4 81.4–84.2 0.31 pts — No
75% 84.1–87.2 81.5–84.1 — pts — No
Reg — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.6–88.2 79.7–85.1 2.46 pts — No
90% 83.1–87.7 80.1–84.6 1.58 pts — No
85% 83.4–87.4 80.4–84.4 1.0 pts — No
80% 83.6–87.2 80.6–84.1 0.56 pts — No
75% 83.8–87.0 80.8–84.0 0.2 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–88.4 80.6–85.1 2.53 pts Yes No
90% 83.0–88.0 81.2–84.5 1.51 pts Yes No
85% 83.3–87.7 81.3–84.2 0.89 pts Yes No
80% 83.6–87.4 81.4–84.1 0.54 pts Yes No
75% 83.8–87.2 81.5–84.0 0.26 pts Yes No
Kevin — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.6–88.1 80.3–85.0 2.4 pts — No
90% 83.1–87.7 80.7–84.6 1.58 pts — No
85% 83.4–87.4 80.9–84.4 1.04 pts — No
80% 83.6–87.2 81.1–84.2 0.63 pts — No
75% 83.8–87.0 81.3–84.0 0.29 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–88.5 79.8–82.9 1.24 pts Yes No
90% 82.2–87.9 79.9–82.7 0.52 pts Yes No
85% 82.6–87.6 80.1–82.7 0.1 pts Yes No
80% 82.8–87.3 80.2–82.6 — pts Yes No
75% 83.1–87.1 80.3–82.5 — pts Yes No
Ice — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–88.6 80.2–85.4 3.04 pts — No
90% 82.9–88.1 80.6–85.0 2.11 pts — No
85% 83.2–87.8 80.9–84.7 1.51 pts — No
80% 83.5–87.6 81.1–84.5 1.05 pts — No
75% 83.7–87.3 81.2–84.3 0.66 pts — No
Jamal — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.8–88.1 80.6–85.1 2.23 pts — No
90% 83.3–87.7 80.9–84.7 1.45 pts — No
85% 83.5–87.4 81.2–84.5 0.93 pts — No
80% 83.8–87.2 81.3–84.3 0.54 pts — No
75% 83.9–87.0 81.5–84.1 0.21 pts — No
Jordan — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.6–88.4 79.9–85.6 2.97 pts — No
90% 83.1–87.9 80.4–85.1 2.06 pts — No
85% 83.4–87.6 80.7–84.8 1.46 pts — No
80% 83.6–87.4 80.9–84.6 1.0 pts — No
75% 83.8–87.2 81.1–84.4 0.62 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–88.1 80.1–85.3 2.29 pts — No
90% 83.4–87.7 80.6–84.8 1.47 pts — No
85% 83.6–87.4 80.8–84.6 0.93 pts — No
80% 83.8–87.2 81.0–84.4 0.52 pts — No
75% 84.0–87.0 81.2–84.2 0.18 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.6–88.4 80.2–84.9 2.32 pts — No
90% 83.1–87.9 80.6–84.5 1.48 pts — No
85% 83.4–87.6 80.8–84.3 0.92 pts — No
80% 83.6–87.4 81.0–84.1 0.5 pts — No
75% 83.8–87.2 81.2–83.9 0.15 pts — No
Lexi — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–88.6 80.5–85.0 2.5 pts — No
90% 83.0–88.1 80.9–84.6 1.65 pts — No
85% 83.3–87.8 81.1–84.4 1.1 pts — No
80% 83.5–87.5 81.3–84.2 0.68 pts — No
75% 83.7–87.3 81.4–84.1 0.33 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — TOR at WAS — Actual: TOR 85, WAS 86
Level TOR range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.8–88.4 81.5–86.3 3.59 pts — Yes
90% 83.2–88.0 81.8–85.9 2.74 pts — No
85% 83.5–87.7 82.1–85.7 2.18 pts — No
80% 83.7–87.5 82.3–85.5 1.76 pts — No
75% 83.9–87.3 82.5–85.3 1.41 pts — No