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

Washington Mystics at Connecticut Sun

WAS 88 – CON 81

June 17, 2026 · Final

Kevin

Best model for this game

Kevin
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 WAS at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

WAS — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Vince Chambers
WAS 81.6–86.5 CON 78.0–82.6 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–86.1 CON 78.4–82.2 Overlap 0.23 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.2–85.8 CON 78.6–82.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.6 CON 78.8–81.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.5 CON 79.0–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
22.83
p-value
4.52e-52

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
WAS 81.1–86.6 CON 77.8–82.9 Overlap 1.78 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.6–86.2 CON 78.2–82.5 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–85.9 CON 78.5–82.2 Overlap 0.38 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–85.7 CON 78.7–82.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.4) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.5 CON 78.9–81.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.4) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
19.17
p-value
3.44e-43

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
WAS 81.7–86.5 CON 77.9–82.2 Overlap 0.5 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–86.1 CON 78.3–81.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.9 CON 78.5–81.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.7 CON 78.7–81.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.7–85.5 CON 78.8–81.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
25.70
p-value
2.15e-58

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
WAS 81.7–86.9 CON 78.2–82.3 Overlap 0.64 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–86.5 CON 78.5–82.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–86.2 CON 78.7–81.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–86.0 CON 78.9–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.8–85.9 CON 79.0–81.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
24.84
p-value
1.98e-55

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
WAS 80.4–85.6 CON 78.4–82.1 Overlap 1.66 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 80.8–85.2 CON 78.7–81.8 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.1–84.9 CON 78.9–81.6 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.3–84.7 CON 79.1–81.4 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.5–84.5 CON 79.2–81.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 2.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
17.74
p-value
5.79e-38

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
WAS 81.6–86.4 CON 78.1–82.3 Overlap 0.75 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–86.0 CON 78.4–82.0 Overlap 0.02 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.2–85.8 CON 78.7–81.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.6 CON 78.8–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.4 CON 79.0–81.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
24.06
p-value
1.32e-54

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
WAS 81.2–87.1 CON 78.0–82.1 Overlap 0.97 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.6–86.6 CON 78.3–81.8 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–86.3 CON 78.5–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–86.1 CON 78.7–81.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.9 CON 78.8–81.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
22.97
p-value
7.09e-50

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
WAS 81.0–86.6 CON 78.4–82.1 Overlap 1.17 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.4–86.2 CON 78.7–81.8 Overlap 0.41 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.7–85.9 CON 78.9–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–85.7 CON 79.0–81.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–85.5 CON 79.2–81.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
21.30
p-value
1.27e-45

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
WAS 81.5–86.9 CON 78.0–82.6 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 82.0–86.4 CON 78.3–82.2 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.2–86.1 CON 78.6–82.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.9 CON 78.8–81.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.8 CON 78.9–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
22.77
p-value
1.51e-51

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
WAS 81.3–86.8 CON 78.7–82.4 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.8–86.4 CON 78.7–82.2 Overlap 0.47 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–86.1 CON 78.8–81.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.9 CON 78.9–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.5–85.7 CON 79.1–81.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.2) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
22.28
p-value
9.68e-50

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
WAS 81.5–86.8 CON 78.2–82.5 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–86.4 CON 78.5–82.1 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.2–86.1 CON 78.7–81.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.9 CON 78.9–81.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.7 CON 79.1–81.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
23.15
p-value
5.23e-52

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
WAS 81.3–86.3 CON 77.6–82.0 Overlap 0.72 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.7–85.9 CON 77.7–81.7 Overlap 0.03 pts Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–85.7 CON 78.5–81.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.5 CON 78.7–81.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.3 CON 78.8–81.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 88, CON 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
22.23
p-value
9.64e-51

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 — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–86.5 78.0–82.6 0.99 pts — No
90% 82.0–86.1 78.4–82.2 0.23 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.8 78.6–82.0 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.6 78.8–81.8 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.5 79.0–81.6 — pts — No
Reg — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.6 77.8–82.9 1.78 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.2 78.2–82.5 0.93 pts — No
85% 81.9–85.9 78.5–82.2 0.38 pts — No
80% 82.1–85.7 78.7–82.0 — pts — No
75% 82.3–85.5 78.9–81.9 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.5 77.9–82.2 0.5 pts — No
90% 82.1–86.1 78.3–81.9 — pts — No
85% 82.4–85.9 78.5–81.7 — pts — No
80% 82.6–85.7 78.7–81.5 — pts — No
75% 82.7–85.5 78.8–81.4 — pts — No
Kevin — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.9 78.2–82.3 0.64 pts — No
90% 82.1–86.5 78.5–82.0 — pts — No
85% 82.4–86.2 78.7–81.8 — pts — No
80% 82.6–86.0 78.9–81.6 — pts — No
75% 82.8–85.9 79.0–81.5 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–85.6 78.4–82.1 1.66 pts — No
90% 80.8–85.2 78.7–81.8 0.95 pts — No
85% 81.1–84.9 78.9–81.6 0.49 pts — No
80% 81.3–84.7 79.1–81.4 0.13 pts — No
75% 81.5–84.5 79.2–81.3 — pts — No
Ice — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–86.4 78.1–82.3 0.75 pts — No
90% 82.0–86.0 78.4–82.0 0.02 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.8 78.7–81.8 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.6 78.8–81.6 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.4 79.0–81.5 — pts — No
Jamal — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–87.1 78.0–82.1 0.97 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.6 78.3–81.8 0.16 pts — No
85% 81.9–86.3 78.5–81.6 — pts — No
80% 82.2–86.1 78.7–81.4 — pts — No
75% 82.4–85.9 78.8–81.3 — pts — No
Jordan — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.6 78.4–82.1 1.17 pts — No
90% 81.4–86.2 78.7–81.8 0.41 pts — No
85% 81.7–85.9 78.9–81.6 — pts — No
80% 82.0–85.7 79.0–81.5 — pts — No
75% 82.1–85.5 79.2–81.4 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.9 78.0–82.6 1.04 pts — No
90% 82.0–86.4 78.3–82.2 0.24 pts — No
85% 82.2–86.1 78.6–82.0 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.9 78.8–81.8 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.8 78.9–81.6 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–86.8 78.7–82.4 1.06 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–86.4 78.7–82.2 0.47 pts Yes No
85% 82.0–86.1 78.8–81.8 — pts Yes No
80% 82.3–85.9 78.9–81.6 — pts Yes No
75% 82.5–85.7 79.1–81.5 — pts Yes No
Lexi — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.8 78.2–82.5 0.93 pts — No
90% 82.0–86.4 78.5–82.1 0.16 pts — No
85% 82.2–86.1 78.7–81.9 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.9 78.9–81.7 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.7 79.1–81.6 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — WAS at CON — Actual: WAS 88, CON 81
Level WAS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–86.3 77.6–82.0 0.72 pts Yes No
90% 81.7–85.9 77.7–81.7 0.03 pts Yes No
85% 82.0–85.7 78.5–81.3 — pts Yes No
80% 82.2–85.5 78.7–81.0 — pts Yes No
75% 82.3–85.3 78.8–81.0 — pts Yes No