Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 20, 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

Chicago Sky at Dallas Wings

CHI 92 – DAL 93

June 20, 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 CHI at DAL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model DAL — one dot per model Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Vince Chambers
CHI 80.2–85.0 DAL 82.0–86.9 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–84.6 DAL 82.4–86.5 Overlap 2.21 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.3 DAL 82.6–86.2 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.1 DAL 82.8–86.0 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–84.0 DAL 83.0–85.9 Overlap 1.0 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-10.92
p-value
5.11e-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.

Reg
CHI 79.8–85.8 DAL 81.7–87.5 Overlap 4.07 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 80.3–85.3 DAL 82.2–87.0 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 80.6–85.0 DAL 82.5–86.7 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.8 DAL 82.7–86.5 Overlap 2.04 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.6 DAL 82.9–86.3 Overlap 1.65 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-8.82
p-value
1.97e-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. Wallace Tol Warning
CHI 80.2–84.8 DAL 81.5–85.8 Overlap 3.34 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 80.6–84.4 DAL 82.2–85.6 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–84.2 DAL 82.3–85.5 Overlap 1.93 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.0–84.0 DAL 82.5–85.3 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–83.9 DAL 82.8–85.2 Overlap 1.07 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-9.41
p-value
6.19e-17

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

Kevin
CHI 80.3–84.9 DAL 82.2–87.0 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–84.5 DAL 82.6–86.6 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.3 DAL 82.9–86.3 Overlap 1.42 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.1 DAL 83.0–86.1 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–83.9 DAL 83.2–86.0 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-12.40
p-value
4.25e-25

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
CHI 79.9–85.2 DAL 82.3–86.6 Overlap 2.9 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.3–84.8 DAL 82.6–86.2 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–84.5 DAL 82.7–86.0 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–84.3 DAL 82.8–85.9 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.0–84.1 DAL 82.9–85.8 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.1) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-8.52
p-value
1.22e-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.

Ice
CHI 80.3–84.6 DAL 82.2–86.8 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.7–84.2 DAL 82.5–86.4 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.0 DAL 82.8–86.1 Overlap 1.23 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–83.8 DAL 83.0–86.0 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.2–83.7 DAL 83.1–85.8 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-13.10
p-value
5.86e-27

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
CHI 80.4–84.8 DAL 82.3–86.8 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.7–84.4 DAL 82.6–86.4 Overlap 1.79 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.0–84.2 DAL 82.9–86.2 Overlap 1.32 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.0 DAL 83.0–86.0 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–83.9 DAL 83.2–85.9 Overlap 0.66 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-12.61
p-value
1.16e-25

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
CHI 80.3–85.0 DAL 82.4–86.4 Overlap 2.53 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.7–84.6 DAL 82.7–86.1 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.3 DAL 83.0–85.9 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.1 DAL 83.1–85.7 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–84.0 DAL 83.3–85.6 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-11.97
p-value
8.86e-24

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
CHI 80.3–84.9 DAL 81.7–87.1 Overlap 3.22 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 80.7–84.5 DAL 82.1–86.7 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.3 DAL 82.4–86.4 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.1 DAL 82.6–86.2 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–83.9 DAL 82.8–86.0 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-10.31
p-value
2.94e-19

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
CHI 80.2–85.1 DAL 81.5–87.0 Overlap 3.52 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 80.6–84.7 DAL 82.0–86.6 Overlap 2.69 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.4 DAL 82.3–86.3 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.2 DAL 82.5–86.1 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.2–84.1 DAL 82.7–85.9 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-9.16
p-value
2.78e-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.

Lexi
CHI 79.8–84.8 DAL 82.0–86.6 Overlap 2.75 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.3) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.2–84.4 DAL 82.4–86.3 Overlap 1.98 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.3) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.4–84.1 DAL 82.6–86.0 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.3) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.7–83.9 DAL 82.8–85.8 Overlap 1.09 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.3) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–83.7 DAL 83.0–85.7 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.3) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.3) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-12.25
p-value
1.21e-24

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
CHI 79.7–84.4 DAL 82.5–86.4 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.1–84.0 DAL 82.9–86.3 Overlap 1.12 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.4–83.8 DAL 83.5–86.2 Overlap 0.27 pts Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 80.5–83.6 DAL 83.6–86.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) — by 2.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 80.7–83.4 DAL 83.8–85.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) over Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) — by 2.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-17.01
p-value
1.54e-37

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

View as table
Vince Chambers — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–85.0 82.0–86.9 2.99 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.6 82.4–86.5 2.21 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.3 82.6–86.2 1.71 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.1 82.8–86.0 1.32 pts — No
75% 81.2–84.0 83.0–85.9 1.0 pts — No
Reg — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.8–85.8 81.7–87.5 4.07 pts — No
90% 80.3–85.3 82.2–87.0 3.13 pts — No
85% 80.6–85.0 82.5–86.7 2.51 pts — No
80% 80.9–84.8 82.7–86.5 2.04 pts — No
75% 81.1–84.6 82.9–86.3 1.65 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–84.8 81.5–85.8 3.34 pts Yes No
90% 80.6–84.4 82.2–85.6 2.26 pts Yes No
85% 80.8–84.2 82.3–85.5 1.93 pts Yes No
80% 81.0–84.0 82.5–85.3 1.54 pts Yes No
75% 81.2–83.9 82.8–85.2 1.07 pts Yes No
Kevin — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.9 82.2–87.0 2.67 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.5 82.6–86.6 1.91 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.3 82.9–86.3 1.42 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.1 83.0–86.1 1.04 pts — No
75% 81.2–83.9 83.2–86.0 0.73 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.9–85.2 82.3–86.6 2.9 pts Yes No
90% 80.3–84.8 82.6–86.2 2.16 pts Yes No
85% 80.6–84.5 82.7–86.0 1.8 pts Yes No
80% 80.8–84.3 82.8–85.9 1.48 pts Yes No
75% 81.0–84.1 82.9–85.8 1.22 pts Yes No
Ice — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.6 82.2–86.8 2.4 pts — No
90% 80.7–84.2 82.5–86.4 1.69 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.0 82.8–86.1 1.23 pts — No
80% 81.1–83.8 83.0–86.0 0.87 pts — No
75% 81.2–83.7 83.1–85.8 0.58 pts — No
Jamal — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–84.8 82.3–86.8 2.5 pts — No
90% 80.7–84.4 82.6–86.4 1.79 pts — No
85% 81.0–84.2 82.9–86.2 1.32 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.0 83.0–86.0 0.96 pts — No
75% 81.3–83.9 83.2–85.9 0.66 pts — No
Jordan — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–85.0 82.4–86.4 2.53 pts — No
90% 80.7–84.6 82.7–86.1 1.83 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.3 83.0–85.9 1.38 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.1 83.1–85.7 1.03 pts — No
75% 81.2–84.0 83.3–85.6 0.74 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.9 81.7–87.1 3.22 pts — No
90% 80.7–84.5 82.1–86.7 2.41 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.3 82.4–86.4 1.88 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.1 82.6–86.2 1.48 pts — No
75% 81.2–83.9 82.8–86.0 1.14 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–85.1 81.5–87.0 3.52 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.7 82.0–86.6 2.69 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.4 82.3–86.3 2.15 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.2 82.5–86.1 1.73 pts — No
75% 81.2–84.1 82.7–85.9 1.38 pts — No
Lexi — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.8–84.8 82.0–86.6 2.75 pts — No
90% 80.2–84.4 82.4–86.3 1.98 pts — No
85% 80.4–84.1 82.6–86.0 1.48 pts — No
80% 80.7–83.9 82.8–85.8 1.09 pts — No
75% 80.8–83.7 83.0–85.7 0.77 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at DAL — Actual: CHI 92, DAL 93
Level CHI range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.7–84.4 82.5–86.4 1.88 pts Yes No
90% 80.1–84.0 82.9–86.3 1.12 pts Yes No
85% 80.4–83.8 83.5–86.2 0.27 pts Yes No
80% 80.5–83.6 83.6–86.1 — pts Yes No
75% 80.7–83.4 83.8–85.9 — pts Yes No