Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 21, 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 Minnesota Lynx

WAS 84 – MIN 79

June 21, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
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 WAS at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

WAS — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Vince Chambers
WAS 81.1–86.5 MIN 85.7–90.4 Overlap 0.79 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.6–86.1 MIN 86.1–90.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.8–85.8 MIN 86.4–89.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–85.6 MIN 86.6–89.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.4 MIN 86.7–89.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-24.21
p-value
1.61e-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.

Reg
WAS 81.3–86.5 MIN 85.5–91.3 Overlap 1.02 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.7–86.1 MIN 86.0–90.8 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–85.8 MIN 86.3–90.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.6 MIN 86.5–90.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.4 MIN 86.7–90.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-23.43
p-value
4.72e-53

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
WAS 82.2–85.5 MIN 85.5–90.1 Overlap 0.01 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.5–85.4 MIN 85.9–89.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.3 MIN 86.1–89.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.8–85.3 MIN 86.3–89.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.8–85.0 MIN 86.5–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.8) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-25.50
p-value
8.26e-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 Tol Warning
WAS 81.4–86.4 MIN 86.0–89.5 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.8–86.0 MIN 86.6–89.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–85.7 MIN 86.8–89.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.5 MIN 86.9–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.3 MIN 87.0–89.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-24.81
p-value
3.76e-56

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
WAS 81.2–85.8 MIN 84.2–89.3 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 82.2–85.5 MIN 84.6–88.9 Overlap 0.88 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.3–85.3 MIN 84.9–88.6 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.5–85.2 MIN 85.1–88.4 Overlap 0.11 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.5–84.9 MIN 85.3–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-16.14
p-value
5.62e-35

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
WAS 81.7–86.5 MIN 85.1–90.3 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.8–86.1 MIN 85.5–89.9 Overlap 0.54 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.4–85.8 MIN 85.8–89.6 Overlap 0.03 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.6–85.7 MIN 86.0–89.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.6–85.5 MIN 86.2–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-18.35
p-value
2.14e-40

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 81.3–86.7 MIN 86.2–89.8 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.8–86.2 MIN 86.5–89.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–86.0 MIN 86.7–89.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.7 MIN 86.8–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.6 MIN 86.9–89.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-25.17
p-value
1.29e-53

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 81.5–86.4 MIN 85.5–90.0 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–86.0 MIN 85.8–89.6 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.2–85.8 MIN 86.1–89.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.6 MIN 86.2–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.5–85.4 MIN 86.4–89.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-22.79
p-value
2.59e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
WAS 81.2–86.7 MIN 85.6–90.5 Overlap 1.17 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.7–86.3 MIN 85.9–90.1 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–86.0 MIN 86.2–89.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.8 MIN 86.4–89.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.6 MIN 86.6–89.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-22.14
p-value
9.39e-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.

Maya Jefferson Tol Warning
WAS 81.4–86.4 MIN 85.6–89.4 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.8–86.0 MIN 86.4–89.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–85.8 MIN 86.8–88.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.6 MIN 86.9–88.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–85.4 MIN 87.0–88.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-24.57
p-value
1.02e-53

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 81.5–86.5 MIN 85.3–90.3 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.9–86.1 MIN 85.7–89.9 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–85.8 MIN 86.0–89.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.6 MIN 86.2–89.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.5–85.4 MIN 86.3–89.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-22.08
p-value
7.18e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
WAS 81.2–85.3 MIN 85.4–90.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.5–84.9 MIN 85.8–90.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.7–84.7 MIN 86.1–89.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.9–84.6 MIN 86.3–89.6 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–84.4 MIN 86.5–89.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-29.27
p-value
1.39e-63

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 MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.5 85.7–90.4 0.79 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.1 86.1–90.0 — pts — No
85% 81.8–85.8 86.4–89.8 — pts — No
80% 82.1–85.6 86.6–89.6 — pts — No
75% 82.2–85.4 86.7–89.5 — pts — No
Reg — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–86.5 85.5–91.3 1.02 pts — No
90% 81.7–86.1 86.0–90.8 0.13 pts — No
85% 82.0–85.8 86.3–90.5 — pts — No
80% 82.2–85.6 86.5–90.3 — pts — No
75% 82.4–85.4 86.7–90.1 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.2–85.5 85.5–90.1 0.01 pts Yes No
90% 82.5–85.4 85.9–89.7 — pts Yes No
85% 82.6–85.3 86.1–89.5 — pts Yes No
80% 82.8–85.3 86.3–89.3 — pts Yes No
75% 82.8–85.0 86.5–89.2 — pts Yes No
Kevin — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–86.4 86.0–89.5 0.33 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–86.0 86.6–89.4 — pts Yes No
85% 82.0–85.7 86.8–89.3 — pts Yes No
80% 82.2–85.5 86.9–89.2 — pts Yes No
75% 82.4–85.3 87.0–89.1 — pts Yes No
Dr. Lila Shah — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–85.8 84.2–89.3 1.64 pts Yes No
90% 82.2–85.5 84.6–88.9 0.88 pts Yes No
85% 82.3–85.3 84.9–88.6 0.42 pts Yes No
80% 82.5–85.2 85.1–88.4 0.11 pts Yes No
75% 82.5–84.9 85.3–88.3 — pts Yes No
Ice — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.5 85.1–90.3 1.43 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–86.1 85.5–89.9 0.54 pts Yes No
85% 82.4–85.8 85.8–89.6 0.03 pts Yes No
80% 82.6–85.7 86.0–89.4 — pts Yes No
75% 82.6–85.5 86.2–89.2 — pts Yes No
Jamal — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–86.7 86.2–89.8 0.49 pts — No
90% 81.8–86.2 86.5–89.5 — pts — No
85% 82.0–86.0 86.7–89.3 — pts — No
80% 82.3–85.7 86.8–89.2 — pts — No
75% 82.4–85.6 86.9–89.0 — pts — No
Jordan — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.4 85.5–90.0 0.95 pts — No
90% 81.9–86.0 85.8–89.6 0.2 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.8 86.1–89.4 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.6 86.2–89.2 — pts — No
75% 82.5–85.4 86.4–89.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–86.7 85.6–90.5 1.17 pts — No
90% 81.7–86.3 85.9–90.1 0.33 pts — No
85% 82.0–86.0 86.2–89.8 — pts — No
80% 82.2–85.8 86.4–89.6 — pts — No
75% 82.4–85.6 86.6–89.5 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–86.4 85.6–89.4 0.87 pts Yes No
90% 81.8–86.0 86.4–89.0 — pts Yes No
85% 82.0–85.8 86.8–88.9 — pts Yes No
80% 82.3–85.6 86.9–88.7 — pts Yes No
75% 82.4–85.4 87.0–88.7 — pts Yes No
Lexi — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.5 85.3–90.3 1.13 pts — No
90% 81.9–86.1 85.7–89.9 0.33 pts — No
85% 82.1–85.8 86.0–89.6 — pts — No
80% 82.3–85.6 86.2–89.4 — pts — No
75% 82.5–85.4 86.3–89.2 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — WAS at MIN — Actual: WAS 84, MIN 79
Level WAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–85.3 85.4–90.5 — pts — No
90% 81.5–84.9 85.8–90.1 — pts — No
85% 81.7–84.7 86.1–89.8 — pts — No
80% 81.9–84.6 86.3–89.6 — pts — No
75% 82.0–84.4 86.5–89.4 — pts — No