Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 22, 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 Connecticut Sun

CHI 63 – CON 92

June 22, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
All models: 0-12
Prediction ranges

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

Confidence level for CHI at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Vince Chambers
CHI 80.7–85.3 CON 77.7–82.1 Overlap 1.37 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.9 CON 78.0–81.7 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–84.7 CON 78.3–81.5 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.5–84.5 CON 78.5–81.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.7–84.3 CON 78.6–81.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
19.86
p-value
1.59e-44

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 80.4–85.5 CON 77.7–82.0 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–85.1 CON 78.0–81.7 Overlap 0.86 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.1–84.9 CON 78.2–81.5 Overlap 0.36 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–84.7 CON 78.4–81.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.5–84.5 CON 78.6–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 83.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
18.77
p-value
1.78e-41

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
CHI 80.6–84.8 CON 77.7–82.0 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.9–84.4 CON 78.0–81.7 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.2–84.2 CON 78.2–81.4 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–84.1 CON 78.4–81.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 2.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.5–83.9 CON 78.6–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
19.06
p-value
1.50e-42

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 80.6–85.3 CON 77.9–81.7 Overlap 1.17 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.0–84.9 CON 78.2–81.4 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.2–84.7 CON 78.4–81.2 Overlap 0.04 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.4–84.5 CON 78.6–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.6–84.3 CON 78.7–81.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
20.64
p-value
1.49e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah Tol Warning
CHI 80.7–84.8 CON 77.8–82.1 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 81.1–84.1 CON 78.2–81.8 Overlap 0.64 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–83.6 CON 78.4–81.6 Overlap 0.27 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.0) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.4–83.5 CON 78.6–81.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.0) — by 2.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.6–83.3 CON 78.7–81.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.0) — by 2.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
16.51
p-value
4.60e-36

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 80.7–84.8 CON 77.9–81.6 Overlap 0.86 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.0–84.5 CON 78.2–81.3 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–84.2 CON 78.3–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.4–84.1 CON 78.5–80.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.6–83.9 CON 78.6–80.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
22.25
p-value
4.38e-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.

Jamal
CHI 80.8–84.7 CON 77.7–81.6 Overlap 0.75 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.1–84.4 CON 78.0–81.3 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.3–84.2 CON 78.2–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.5–84.0 CON 78.4–80.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.6–83.9 CON 78.5–80.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
23.03
p-value
4.63e-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.

Jordan
CHI 80.3–84.9 CON 77.7–81.7 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–84.5 CON 78.1–81.4 Overlap 0.78 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 80.9–84.3 CON 78.3–81.2 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.1–84.1 CON 78.4–81.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.2–83.9 CON 78.6–80.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
18.78
p-value
1.52e-41

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 80.4–84.8 CON 77.6–81.9 Overlap 1.44 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–84.4 CON 77.9–81.5 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.0–84.2 CON 78.1–81.3 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.2–84.0 CON 78.3–81.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.3–83.9 CON 78.5–81.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.7) — by 2.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
19.10
p-value
1.08e-42

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
CHI 81.4–85.0 CON 77.5–81.6 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.5–84.6 CON 77.8–81.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.6–84.2 CON 78.2–80.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.8–84.1 CON 78.3–80.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 81.9–83.9 CON 78.4–80.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.8) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
19.56
p-value
2.68e-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.

Lexi
CHI 80.4–85.0 CON 77.8–82.1 Overlap 1.66 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.8–84.6 CON 78.2–81.7 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.0–84.4 CON 78.4–81.5 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.2–84.2 CON 78.6–81.3 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 81.4–84.0 CON 78.7–81.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.9) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
17.82
p-value
2.20e-39

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
CHI 80.0–84.2 CON 78.3–81.9 Overlap 1.92 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.3–83.9 CON 78.6–81.6 Overlap 1.29 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 80.6–83.7 CON 78.8–81.4 Overlap 0.88 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 80.7–83.5 CON 78.9–81.3 Overlap 0.57 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 80.9–83.3 CON 79.0–81.2 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: CHI 63, CON 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
14.54
p-value
1.29e-30

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 CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–85.3 77.7–82.1 1.37 pts — No
90% 81.1–84.9 78.0–81.7 0.65 pts — No
85% 81.3–84.7 78.3–81.5 0.18 pts — No
80% 81.5–84.5 78.5–81.3 — pts — No
75% 81.7–84.3 78.6–81.2 — pts — No
Reg — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–85.5 77.7–82.0 1.62 pts — No
90% 80.8–85.1 78.0–81.7 0.86 pts — No
85% 81.1–84.9 78.2–81.5 0.36 pts — No
80% 81.3–84.7 78.4–81.3 — pts — No
75% 81.5–84.5 78.6–81.1 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–84.8 77.7–82.0 1.43 pts — No
90% 80.9–84.4 78.0–81.7 0.74 pts — No
85% 81.2–84.2 78.2–81.4 0.29 pts — No
80% 81.3–84.1 78.4–81.3 — pts — No
75% 81.5–83.9 78.6–81.1 — pts — No
Kevin — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–85.3 77.9–81.7 1.17 pts — No
90% 81.0–84.9 78.2–81.4 0.48 pts — No
85% 81.2–84.7 78.4–81.2 0.04 pts — No
80% 81.4–84.5 78.6–81.1 — pts — No
75% 81.6–84.3 78.7–81.0 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–84.8 77.8–82.1 1.41 pts Yes No
90% 81.1–84.1 78.2–81.8 0.64 pts Yes No
85% 81.3–83.6 78.4–81.6 0.27 pts Yes No
80% 81.4–83.5 78.6–81.4 — pts Yes No
75% 81.6–83.3 78.7–81.2 — pts Yes No
Ice — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–84.8 77.9–81.6 0.86 pts — No
90% 81.0–84.5 78.2–81.3 0.24 pts — No
85% 81.3–84.2 78.3–81.1 — pts — No
80% 81.4–84.1 78.5–80.9 — pts — No
75% 81.6–83.9 78.6–80.8 — pts — No
Jamal — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.8–84.7 77.7–81.6 0.75 pts — No
90% 81.1–84.4 78.0–81.3 0.13 pts — No
85% 81.3–84.2 78.2–81.1 — pts — No
80% 81.5–84.0 78.4–80.9 — pts — No
75% 81.6–83.9 78.5–80.8 — pts — No
Jordan — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.9 77.7–81.7 1.48 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.5 78.1–81.4 0.78 pts — No
85% 80.9–84.3 78.3–81.2 0.33 pts — No
80% 81.1–84.1 78.4–81.0 — pts — No
75% 81.2–83.9 78.6–80.9 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–84.8 77.6–81.9 1.44 pts — No
90% 80.8–84.4 77.9–81.5 0.74 pts — No
85% 81.0–84.2 78.1–81.3 0.29 pts — No
80% 81.2–84.0 78.3–81.1 — pts — No
75% 81.3–83.9 78.5–81.0 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–85.0 77.5–81.6 0.2 pts Yes No
90% 81.5–84.6 77.8–81.4 — pts Yes No
85% 81.6–84.2 78.2–80.9 — pts Yes No
80% 81.8–84.1 78.3–80.8 — pts Yes No
75% 81.9–83.9 78.4–80.8 — pts Yes No
Lexi — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–85.0 77.8–82.1 1.66 pts — No
90% 80.8–84.6 78.2–81.7 0.95 pts — No
85% 81.0–84.4 78.4–81.5 0.49 pts — No
80% 81.2–84.2 78.6–81.3 0.13 pts — No
75% 81.4–84.0 78.7–81.2 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 63, CON 92
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–84.2 78.3–81.9 1.92 pts — No
90% 80.3–83.9 78.6–81.6 1.29 pts — No
85% 80.6–83.7 78.8–81.4 0.88 pts — No
80% 80.7–83.5 78.9–81.3 0.57 pts — No
75% 80.9–83.3 79.0–81.2 0.3 pts — No