Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 14, 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

Atlanta Dream at Toronto Tempo

ATL 102 – TOR 77

June 14, 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 ATL at TOR

All 12 models’ predicted scores

ATL — one dot per model TOR — one dot per model Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Vince Chambers
ATL 82.5–87.0 TOR 83.6–89.1 Overlap 3.4 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.8) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.9–86.6 TOR 84.0–88.7 Overlap 2.6 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.8) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.1–86.4 TOR 84.3–88.4 Overlap 2.07 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.8) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.3–86.2 TOR 84.5–88.2 Overlap 1.67 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.8) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–86.1 TOR 84.7–88.0 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.8) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-9.20
p-value
2.30e-16

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
ATL 81.9–86.8 TOR 83.2–88.7 Overlap 3.55 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.0) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.3–86.4 TOR 83.7–88.3 Overlap 2.71 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.0) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.6–86.1 TOR 83.9–88.0 Overlap 2.17 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.0) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.8–85.9 TOR 84.2–87.8 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.0) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–85.8 TOR 84.4–87.6 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.0) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-9.12
p-value
3.17e-16

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
ATL 82.4–87.0 TOR 83.7–88.6 Overlap 3.27 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.8–86.6 TOR 84.1–88.2 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–86.4 TOR 84.3–87.9 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–86.2 TOR 84.5–87.8 Overlap 1.63 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–86.0 TOR 84.7–87.6 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-8.95
p-value
8.19e-16

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
ATL 82.6–86.9 TOR 83.6–88.7 Overlap 3.27 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.9–86.5 TOR 84.0–88.3 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–86.3 TOR 84.3–88.1 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.3–86.1 TOR 84.5–87.8 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–86.0 TOR 84.7–87.7 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.7) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-8.84
p-value
1.88e-15

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
ATL 81.9–86.7 TOR 82.6–87.9 Overlap 4.03 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.3–86.3 TOR 83.1–87.1 Overlap 3.17 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.5–86.0 TOR 83.1–87.0 Overlap 2.91 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.7–85.8 TOR 83.6–86.7 Overlap 2.19 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–85.7 TOR 83.8–86.5 Overlap 1.89 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-5.44
p-value
2.06e-07

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
ATL 82.2–86.8 TOR 84.1–88.4 Overlap 2.7 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.6–86.4 TOR 84.5–88.1 Overlap 1.95 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.8–86.2 TOR 84.5–88.0 Overlap 1.67 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–86.0 TOR 84.9–87.4 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–85.9 TOR 85.1–87.4 Overlap 0.8 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-8.93
p-value
1.06e-15

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
ATL 82.7–86.5 TOR 83.2–88.5 Overlap 3.3 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 83.0–86.2 TOR 83.7–88.0 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–86.0 TOR 83.9–87.8 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–85.9 TOR 84.1–87.5 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–85.7 TOR 84.3–87.4 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-7.75
p-value
1.32e-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.

Jordan Tol Warning
ATL 82.3–86.7 TOR 83.2–88.4 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.6–86.3 TOR 83.3–87.8 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–86.1 TOR 83.7–87.3 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–85.9 TOR 84.2–87.1 Overlap 1.74 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–85.8 TOR 84.3–87.0 Overlap 1.47 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-6.35
p-value
2.73e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
ATL 82.3–86.6 TOR 82.9–88.9 Overlap 3.68 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.6–86.3 TOR 83.4–88.5 Overlap 2.85 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–86.0 TOR 83.7–88.1 Overlap 2.3 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–85.9 TOR 84.0–87.9 Overlap 1.89 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–85.7 TOR 84.2–87.7 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-8.28
p-value
6.82e-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.

Maya Jefferson
ATL 82.4–86.6 TOR 83.3–88.6 Overlap 3.28 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.7–86.3 TOR 83.7–88.1 Overlap 2.52 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–86.0 TOR 84.0–87.9 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.1–85.9 TOR 84.2–87.7 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–85.7 TOR 84.4–87.5 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-8.89
p-value
1.45e-15

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
ATL 82.2–86.8 TOR 83.3–88.5 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.5–86.4 TOR 83.7–88.1 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.8–86.1 TOR 84.0–87.8 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–86.0 TOR 84.2–87.6 Overlap 1.74 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.1–85.8 TOR 84.4–87.5 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.5) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-8.66
p-value
4.90e-15

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
ATL 82.0–86.8 TOR 82.6–88.1 Overlap 4.15 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.4–86.4 TOR 83.1–87.6 Overlap 3.33 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.6–86.2 TOR 83.4–87.4 Overlap 2.79 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.8–86.0 TOR 83.6–87.1 Overlap 2.37 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–85.8 TOR 83.8–87.0 Overlap 2.03 pts Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-5.55
p-value
1.14e-07

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 — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–87.0 83.6–89.1 3.4 pts — No
90% 82.9–86.6 84.0–88.7 2.6 pts — No
85% 83.1–86.4 84.3–88.4 2.07 pts — No
80% 83.3–86.2 84.5–88.2 1.67 pts — No
75% 83.5–86.1 84.7–88.0 1.34 pts — No
Reg — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.9–86.8 83.2–88.7 3.55 pts — No
90% 82.3–86.4 83.7–88.3 2.71 pts — No
85% 82.6–86.1 83.9–88.0 2.17 pts — No
80% 82.8–85.9 84.2–87.8 1.76 pts — No
75% 82.9–85.8 84.4–87.6 1.41 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–87.0 83.7–88.6 3.27 pts — No
90% 82.8–86.6 84.1–88.2 2.51 pts — No
85% 83.0–86.4 84.3–87.9 2.01 pts — No
80% 83.2–86.2 84.5–87.8 1.63 pts — No
75% 83.4–86.0 84.7–87.6 1.32 pts — No
Kevin — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.6–86.9 83.6–88.7 3.27 pts — No
90% 82.9–86.5 84.0–88.3 2.51 pts — No
85% 83.2–86.3 84.3–88.1 2.02 pts — No
80% 83.3–86.1 84.5–87.8 1.64 pts — No
75% 83.5–86.0 84.7–87.7 1.32 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.9–86.7 82.6–87.9 4.03 pts Yes No
90% 82.3–86.3 83.1–87.1 3.17 pts Yes No
85% 82.5–86.0 83.1–87.0 2.91 pts Yes No
80% 82.7–85.8 83.6–86.7 2.19 pts Yes No
75% 82.9–85.7 83.8–86.5 1.89 pts Yes No
Ice — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.2–86.8 84.1–88.4 2.7 pts Yes No
90% 82.6–86.4 84.5–88.1 1.95 pts Yes No
85% 82.8–86.2 84.5–88.0 1.67 pts Yes No
80% 83.0–86.0 84.9–87.4 1.13 pts Yes No
75% 83.2–85.9 85.1–87.4 0.8 pts Yes No
Jamal — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.7–86.5 83.2–88.5 3.3 pts — No
90% 83.0–86.2 83.7–88.0 2.57 pts — No
85% 83.2–86.0 83.9–87.8 2.1 pts — No
80% 83.4–85.9 84.1–87.5 1.73 pts — No
75% 83.5–85.7 84.3–87.4 1.43 pts — No
Jordan — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–86.7 83.2–88.4 3.49 pts Yes No
90% 82.6–86.3 83.3–87.8 2.99 pts Yes No
85% 82.9–86.1 83.7–87.3 2.42 pts Yes No
80% 83.0–85.9 84.2–87.1 1.74 pts Yes No
75% 83.2–85.8 84.3–87.0 1.47 pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–86.6 82.9–88.9 3.68 pts — No
90% 82.6–86.3 83.4–88.5 2.85 pts — No
85% 82.9–86.0 83.7–88.1 2.3 pts — No
80% 83.0–85.9 84.0–87.9 1.89 pts — No
75% 83.2–85.7 84.2–87.7 1.54 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–86.6 83.3–88.6 3.28 pts — No
90% 82.7–86.3 83.7–88.1 2.52 pts — No
85% 82.9–86.0 84.0–87.9 2.02 pts — No
80% 83.1–85.9 84.2–87.7 1.64 pts — No
75% 83.2–85.7 84.4–87.5 1.32 pts — No
Lexi — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.2–86.8 83.3–88.5 3.44 pts — No
90% 82.5–86.4 83.7–88.1 2.65 pts — No
85% 82.8–86.1 84.0–87.8 2.13 pts — No
80% 83.0–86.0 84.2–87.6 1.74 pts — No
75% 83.1–85.8 84.4–87.5 1.41 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — ATL at TOR — Actual: ATL 102, TOR 77
Level ATL range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–86.8 82.6–88.1 4.15 pts — No
90% 82.4–86.4 83.1–87.6 3.33 pts — No
85% 82.6–86.2 83.4–87.4 2.79 pts — No
80% 82.8–86.0 83.6–87.1 2.37 pts — No
75% 83.0–85.8 83.8–87.0 2.03 pts — No