Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 17, 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 Los Angeles Sparks

MIN 99 – LAS 83

June 17, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
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 LAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model LAS — one dot per model Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
MIN 85.3–89.7 LAS 84.5–88.2 Overlap 2.86 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–89.4 LAS 84.7–88.0 Overlap 2.36 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–89.1 LAS 84.7–87.8 Overlap 1.92 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–88.9 LAS 84.9–87.7 Overlap 1.67 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–88.8 LAS 85.0–87.6 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
8.33
p-value
3.65e-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.

Reg
MIN 85.2–89.8 LAS 82.9–88.3 Overlap 3.16 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.6) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.5–89.4 LAS 83.3–87.9 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.6) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–89.2 LAS 83.6–87.6 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.6) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.0–89.0 LAS 83.8–87.4 Overlap 1.42 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.6) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–88.8 LAS 84.0–87.2 Overlap 1.08 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.6) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
10.73
p-value
1.80e-20

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 85.0–89.4 LAS 83.4–88.4 Overlap 3.39 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–89.1 LAS 83.8–88.0 Overlap 2.64 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.8 LAS 84.1–87.7 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.7 LAS 84.3–87.5 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–88.5 LAS 84.4–87.3 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
8.07
p-value
1.69e-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.

Kevin
MIN 85.3–89.6 LAS 83.5–88.6 Overlap 3.25 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.7–89.3 LAS 83.9–88.2 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–89.1 LAS 84.2–87.9 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–88.9 LAS 84.4–87.7 Overlap 1.63 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–88.7 LAS 84.6–87.5 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
8.81
p-value
2.24e-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
MIN 84.5–89.3 LAS 82.3–87.7 Overlap 3.22 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.9–88.9 LAS 82.7–87.3 Overlap 2.39 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–88.7 LAS 83.0–87.0 Overlap 1.85 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–88.5 LAS 83.2–86.8 Overlap 1.44 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–88.3 LAS 83.4–86.6 Overlap 1.09 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
10.81
p-value
9.49e-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.

Ice
MIN 85.0–89.5 LAS 83.2–88.6 Overlap 3.53 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.4–89.2 LAS 83.6–88.1 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.9 LAS 83.9–87.8 Overlap 2.22 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–88.7 LAS 84.1–87.6 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.0–88.6 LAS 84.3–87.4 Overlap 1.49 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
8.26
p-value
6.09e-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.

Jamal
MIN 84.9–89.4 LAS 82.9–88.7 Overlap 3.8 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–89.0 LAS 83.4–88.3 Overlap 2.98 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–88.8 LAS 83.7–88.0 Overlap 2.44 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.6 LAS 83.9–87.7 Overlap 2.03 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–88.5 LAS 84.1–87.5 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
7.43
p-value
7.55e-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
MIN 85.0–89.5 LAS 82.3–87.6 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–89.1 LAS 83.7–87.5 Overlap 2.12 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–88.9 LAS 84.1–87.4 Overlap 1.79 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–88.7 LAS 84.2–87.3 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–88.6 LAS 84.3–87.1 Overlap 1.18 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
8.88
p-value
1.93e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
MIN 84.8–89.8 LAS 82.7–88.7 Overlap 3.86 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.2–89.4 LAS 83.1–88.2 Overlap 2.98 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–89.1 LAS 83.5–87.9 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.9 LAS 83.7–87.6 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–88.8 LAS 83.9–87.4 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
8.54
p-value
1.21e-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 Tol Warning
MIN 84.9–89.9 LAS 82.7–88.2 Overlap 3.24 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–89.5 LAS 84.2–87.9 Overlap 2.58 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–89.3 LAS 84.5–87.6 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–89.1 LAS 84.8–87.5 Overlap 1.65 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.0–88.9 LAS 84.8–87.4 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
7.51
p-value
4.39e-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.

Lexi Tol Warning
MIN 85.5–90.2 LAS 83.3–88.6 Overlap 3.18 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.6–89.1 LAS 83.7–88.2 Overlap 2.61 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–88.5 LAS 84.0–87.9 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–88.3 LAS 84.2–87.7 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.3–88.2 LAS 84.4–87.5 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
7.54
p-value
3.39e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe Tol Warning
MIN 85.9–90.5 LAS 83.4–87.9 Overlap 2.02 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–89.6 LAS 83.7–87.6 Overlap 1.35 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.3–89.3 LAS 84.0–87.3 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.5–89.1 LAS 84.2–87.2 Overlap 0.68 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.7–89.0 LAS 84.3–87.0 Overlap 0.26 pts Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
12.85
p-value
2.47e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.3–89.7 84.5–88.2 2.86 pts Yes No
90% 85.7–89.4 84.7–88.0 2.36 pts Yes No
85% 85.9–89.1 84.7–87.8 1.92 pts Yes No
80% 86.1–88.9 84.9–87.7 1.67 pts Yes No
75% 86.2–88.8 85.0–87.6 1.38 pts Yes No
Reg — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.2–89.8 82.9–88.3 3.16 pts — No
90% 85.5–89.4 83.3–87.9 2.35 pts — No
85% 85.8–89.2 83.6–87.6 1.82 pts — No
80% 86.0–89.0 83.8–87.4 1.42 pts — No
75% 86.1–88.8 84.0–87.2 1.08 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–89.4 83.4–88.4 3.39 pts — No
90% 85.3–89.1 83.8–88.0 2.64 pts — No
85% 85.6–88.8 84.1–87.7 2.14 pts — No
80% 85.7–88.7 84.3–87.5 1.76 pts — No
75% 85.9–88.5 84.4–87.3 1.45 pts — No
Kevin — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.3–89.6 83.5–88.6 3.25 pts — No
90% 85.7–89.3 83.9–88.2 2.5 pts — No
85% 85.9–89.1 84.2–87.9 2.01 pts — No
80% 86.1–88.9 84.4–87.7 1.63 pts — No
75% 86.2–88.7 84.6–87.5 1.32 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.3 82.3–87.7 3.22 pts — No
90% 84.9–88.9 82.7–87.3 2.39 pts — No
85% 85.1–88.7 83.0–87.0 1.85 pts — No
80% 85.3–88.5 83.2–86.8 1.44 pts — No
75% 85.5–88.3 83.4–86.6 1.09 pts — No
Ice — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–89.5 83.2–88.6 3.53 pts — No
90% 85.4–89.2 83.6–88.1 2.73 pts — No
85% 85.6–88.9 83.9–87.8 2.22 pts — No
80% 85.8–88.7 84.1–87.6 1.82 pts — No
75% 86.0–88.6 84.3–87.4 1.49 pts — No
Jamal — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–89.4 82.9–88.7 3.8 pts — No
90% 85.3–89.0 83.4–88.3 2.98 pts — No
85% 85.5–88.8 83.7–88.0 2.44 pts — No
80% 85.7–88.6 83.9–87.7 2.03 pts — No
75% 85.8–88.5 84.1–87.5 1.68 pts — No
Jordan — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–89.5 82.3–87.6 2.57 pts Yes No
90% 85.4–89.1 83.7–87.5 2.12 pts Yes No
85% 85.6–88.9 84.1–87.4 1.79 pts Yes No
80% 85.8–88.7 84.2–87.3 1.46 pts Yes No
75% 85.9–88.6 84.3–87.1 1.18 pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–89.8 82.7–88.7 3.86 pts — No
90% 85.2–89.4 83.1–88.2 2.98 pts — No
85% 85.5–89.1 83.5–87.9 2.4 pts — No
80% 85.7–88.9 83.7–87.6 1.96 pts — No
75% 85.8–88.8 83.9–87.4 1.59 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–89.9 82.7–88.2 3.24 pts Yes No
90% 85.3–89.5 84.2–87.9 2.58 pts Yes No
85% 85.6–89.3 84.5–87.6 1.96 pts Yes No
80% 85.8–89.1 84.8–87.5 1.65 pts Yes No
75% 86.0–88.9 84.8–87.4 1.45 pts Yes No
Lexi — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.5–90.2 83.3–88.6 3.18 pts Yes No
90% 85.6–89.1 83.7–88.2 2.61 pts Yes No
85% 85.7–88.5 84.0–87.9 2.24 pts Yes No
80% 86.1–88.3 84.2–87.7 1.6 pts Yes No
75% 86.3–88.2 84.4–87.5 1.26 pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at LAS — Actual: MIN 99, LAS 83
Level MIN range LAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–90.5 83.4–87.9 2.02 pts Yes No
90% 86.2–89.6 83.7–87.6 1.35 pts Yes No
85% 86.3–89.3 84.0–87.3 1.03 pts Yes No
80% 86.5–89.1 84.2–87.2 0.68 pts Yes No
75% 86.7–89.0 84.3–87.0 0.26 pts Yes No