Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 13, 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

Minnesota Lynx at Las Vegas Aces

MIN 97 – LVA 100

June 13, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 12-0
Prediction ranges

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

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

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

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

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

Confidence level for MIN at LVA

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model LVA — one dot per model Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
MIN 84.6–89.9 LVA 86.2–91.6 Overlap 3.73 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.0–89.5 LVA 86.8–90.7 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–89.2 LVA 87.0–90.3 Overlap 2.21 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–89.0 LVA 87.2–90.2 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.8 LVA 87.4–90.0 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-7.55
p-value
2.84e-12

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
MIN 83.9–90.6 LVA 85.1–92.5 Overlap 5.57 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.5–90.1 LVA 85.7–91.9 Overlap 4.44 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.8–89.8 LVA 86.1–91.5 Overlap 3.7 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.1–89.5 LVA 86.4–91.2 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–89.3 LVA 86.6–90.9 Overlap 2.66 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-6.13
p-value
6.53e-09

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
MIN 84.8–89.2 LVA 85.4–90.9 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.2–88.9 LVA 85.9–90.5 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–88.6 LVA 86.2–90.2 Overlap 2.47 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.4 LVA 86.4–90.0 Overlap 2.07 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.3 LVA 86.6–89.8 Overlap 1.74 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-6.83
p-value
1.77e-10

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
MIN 84.9–89.2 LVA 85.5–91.1 Overlap 3.77 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–88.9 LVA 85.9–90.7 Overlap 2.97 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–88.7 LVA 86.2–90.4 Overlap 2.45 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.5 LVA 86.4–90.1 Overlap 2.05 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–88.3 LVA 86.6–89.9 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-7.05
p-value
5.72e-11

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
MIN 83.7–88.3 LVA 85.0–90.5 Overlap 3.35 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 87.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.0–88.0 LVA 85.4–90.1 Overlap 2.53 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 87.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.3–87.7 LVA 85.7–89.8 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 87.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.5–87.5 LVA 85.9–89.5 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 87.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.6–87.4 LVA 86.1–89.4 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 87.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-9.95
p-value
1.89e-18

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

Ice Tol Warning
MIN 84.2–89.6 LVA 86.1–91.4 Overlap 3.43 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.7–89.1 LVA 86.2–90.3 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–88.9 LVA 86.5–89.9 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–88.6 LVA 86.6–89.7 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–88.5 LVA 86.8–89.2 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-6.50
p-value
9.62e-10

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
MIN 84.7–89.1 LVA 85.4–91.2 Overlap 3.71 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.0–88.7 LVA 85.9–90.7 Overlap 2.89 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–88.5 LVA 86.2–90.4 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–88.3 LVA 86.4–90.2 Overlap 1.94 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.2 LVA 86.6–90.0 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-7.87
p-value
5.98e-13

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
MIN 84.4–89.1 LVA 85.5–90.9 Overlap 3.65 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.8–88.8 LVA 85.9–90.4 Overlap 2.83 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.0–88.5 LVA 86.2–90.1 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.2–88.3 LVA 86.4–89.9 Overlap 1.9 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–88.2 LVA 86.6–89.7 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-8.11
p-value
1.22e-13

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
MIN 84.1–89.9 LVA 85.5–91.2 Overlap 4.39 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.6–89.4 LVA 86.0–90.8 Overlap 3.47 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.9–89.1 LVA 86.3–90.5 Overlap 2.87 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–88.9 LVA 86.5–90.2 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–88.7 LVA 86.7–90.0 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-6.84
p-value
1.52e-10

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
MIN 84.5–89.8 LVA 85.1–91.7 Overlap 4.7 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.9–89.4 LVA 85.6–91.2 Overlap 3.74 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.2–89.1 LVA 86.0–90.8 Overlap 3.12 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.4–88.9 LVA 86.2–90.6 Overlap 2.64 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.7 LVA 86.5–90.3 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-6.10
p-value
8.20e-09

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
MIN 84.6–89.6 LVA 85.7–90.9 Overlap 3.97 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.0–89.2 LVA 86.1–90.4 Overlap 3.15 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–89.0 LVA 86.4–90.2 Overlap 2.61 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–88.8 LVA 86.6–90.0 Overlap 2.2 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.6 LVA 86.7–89.8 Overlap 1.86 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-6.44
p-value
1.25e-09

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
MIN 84.4–89.4 LVA 85.6–90.9 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.8–89.0 LVA 86.0–90.5 Overlap 2.96 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–88.7 LVA 86.3–90.2 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–88.5 LVA 86.5–90.0 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–88.4 LVA 86.7–89.8 Overlap 1.66 pts Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Las Vegas Aces (avg. 88.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-7.67
p-value
1.49e-12

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 — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.6–89.9 86.2–91.6 3.73 pts Yes No
90% 85.0–89.5 86.8–90.7 2.73 pts Yes No
85% 85.3–89.2 87.0–90.3 2.21 pts Yes No
80% 85.5–89.0 87.2–90.2 1.82 pts Yes No
75% 85.7–88.8 87.4–90.0 1.41 pts Yes No
Reg — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–90.6 85.1–92.5 5.57 pts — No
90% 84.5–90.1 85.7–91.9 4.44 pts — No
85% 84.8–89.8 86.1–91.5 3.7 pts — No
80% 85.1–89.5 86.4–91.2 3.13 pts — No
75% 85.3–89.3 86.6–90.9 2.66 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–89.2 85.4–90.9 3.79 pts — No
90% 85.2–88.9 85.9–90.5 2.99 pts — No
85% 85.4–88.6 86.2–90.2 2.47 pts — No
80% 85.6–88.4 86.4–90.0 2.07 pts — No
75% 85.7–88.3 86.6–89.8 1.74 pts — No
Kevin — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–89.2 85.5–91.1 3.77 pts — No
90% 85.3–88.9 85.9–90.7 2.97 pts — No
85% 85.5–88.7 86.2–90.4 2.45 pts — No
80% 85.7–88.5 86.4–90.1 2.05 pts — No
75% 85.8–88.3 86.6–89.9 1.71 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–88.3 85.0–90.5 3.35 pts — No
90% 84.0–88.0 85.4–90.1 2.53 pts — No
85% 84.3–87.7 85.7–89.8 2.0 pts — No
80% 84.5–87.5 85.9–89.5 1.59 pts — No
75% 84.6–87.4 86.1–89.4 1.25 pts — No
Ice — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–89.6 86.1–91.4 3.43 pts Yes No
90% 84.7–89.1 86.2–90.3 2.92 pts Yes No
85% 84.9–88.9 86.5–89.9 2.34 pts Yes No
80% 85.1–88.6 86.6–89.7 2.02 pts Yes No
75% 85.3–88.5 86.8–89.2 1.64 pts Yes No
Jamal — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–89.1 85.4–91.2 3.71 pts — No
90% 85.0–88.7 85.9–90.7 2.89 pts — No
85% 85.3–88.5 86.2–90.4 2.35 pts — No
80% 85.5–88.3 86.4–90.2 1.94 pts — No
75% 85.6–88.2 86.6–90.0 1.6 pts — No
Jordan — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–89.1 85.5–90.9 3.65 pts — No
90% 84.8–88.8 85.9–90.4 2.83 pts — No
85% 85.0–88.5 86.2–90.1 2.31 pts — No
80% 85.2–88.3 86.4–89.9 1.9 pts — No
75% 85.4–88.2 86.6–89.7 1.56 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.1–89.9 85.5–91.2 4.39 pts — No
90% 84.6–89.4 86.0–90.8 3.47 pts — No
85% 84.9–89.1 86.3–90.5 2.87 pts — No
80% 85.1–88.9 86.5–90.2 2.41 pts — No
75% 85.3–88.7 86.7–90.0 2.02 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.8 85.1–91.7 4.7 pts — No
90% 84.9–89.4 85.6–91.2 3.74 pts — No
85% 85.2–89.1 86.0–90.8 3.12 pts — No
80% 85.4–88.9 86.2–90.6 2.64 pts — No
75% 85.6–88.7 86.5–90.3 2.24 pts — No
Lexi — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.6–89.6 85.7–90.9 3.97 pts — No
90% 85.0–89.2 86.1–90.4 3.15 pts — No
85% 85.3–89.0 86.4–90.2 2.61 pts — No
80% 85.5–88.8 86.6–90.0 2.2 pts — No
75% 85.7–88.6 86.7–89.8 1.86 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at LVA — Actual: MIN 97, LVA 100
Level MIN range LVA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–89.4 85.6–90.9 3.79 pts — No
90% 84.8–89.0 86.0–90.5 2.96 pts — No
85% 85.1–88.7 86.3–90.2 2.42 pts — No
80% 85.3–88.5 86.5–90.0 2.01 pts — No
75% 85.4–88.4 86.7–89.8 1.66 pts — No