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

Toronto Tempo at Atlanta Dream

TOR 87 – ATL 94

June 22, 2026 · Final

Maya Jefferson

Best model for this game

Maya Jefferson
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 TOR at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

TOR — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Vince Chambers
TOR 83.8–89.4 ATL 83.2–88.4 Overlap 4.69 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.2–88.9 ATL 83.6–88.0 Overlap 3.81 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.5–88.6 ATL 83.9–87.8 Overlap 3.25 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.7–88.4 ATL 84.1–87.5 Overlap 2.81 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.9–88.2 ATL 84.3–87.4 Overlap 2.44 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
3.90
p-value
1.41e-04

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
TOR 83.8–89.7 ATL 82.8–88.5 Overlap 4.72 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.3–89.3 ATL 83.2–88.1 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.6–88.9 ATL 83.5–87.8 Overlap 3.17 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.8–88.7 ATL 83.8–87.5 Overlap 2.7 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.0–88.5 ATL 84.0–87.3 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
5.45
p-value
1.96e-07

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
TOR 83.7–88.8 ATL 83.1–87.6 Overlap 3.92 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.1–88.4 ATL 83.5–87.2 Overlap 3.15 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.3–88.1 ATL 83.7–87.0 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.5–87.9 ATL 83.9–86.8 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.7–87.7 ATL 84.0–86.7 Overlap 1.94 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
5.14
p-value
8.33e-07

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
TOR 84.0–88.7 ATL 82.9–88.1 Overlap 4.16 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.4–88.3 ATL 83.3–87.7 Overlap 3.35 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.6–88.1 ATL 83.6–87.4 Overlap 2.83 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.8–87.9 ATL 83.8–87.2 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.0–87.7 ATL 84.0–87.1 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
4.86
p-value
2.91e-06

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
TOR 83.9–89.0 ATL 82.6–87.3 Overlap 3.41 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.9) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.3–88.6 ATL 82.9–86.9 Overlap 2.62 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.9) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.6–88.3 ATL 83.2–86.7 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.9) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.8–88.1 ATL 83.4–86.5 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.9) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.9–87.9 ATL 83.5–86.3 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 84.9) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
8.75
p-value
3.28e-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.

Ice Tol Warning
TOR 84.7–89.3 ATL 83.5–87.2 Overlap 2.49 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.0–87.9 ATL 83.7–86.9 Overlap 1.86 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.1–87.6 ATL 83.9–86.6 Overlap 1.5 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.3–87.4 ATL 84.1–86.5 Overlap 1.27 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.4–87.4 ATL 84.2–86.4 Overlap 1.02 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
6.77
p-value
2.49e-10

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
TOR 83.7–88.9 ATL 82.9–87.7 Overlap 4.0 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.2–88.5 ATL 83.3–87.4 Overlap 3.19 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.4–88.2 ATL 83.5–87.1 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.6–88.0 ATL 83.7–86.9 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.8–87.8 ATL 83.9–86.7 Overlap 1.93 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
5.76
p-value
4.31e-08

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
TOR 84.0–88.8 ATL 83.0–87.5 Overlap 3.51 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.4–88.4 ATL 83.3–87.2 Overlap 2.76 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.6–88.1 ATL 83.6–86.9 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.8–87.9 ATL 83.7–86.7 Overlap 1.9 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.0–87.8 ATL 83.9–86.6 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
7.02
p-value
6.31e-11

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
TOR 83.7–89.0 ATL 82.4–88.1 Overlap 4.37 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.2–88.6 ATL 82.9–87.6 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.4–88.3 ATL 83.2–87.4 Overlap 2.91 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.7–88.1 ATL 83.4–87.1 Overlap 2.47 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.8–87.9 ATL 83.6–86.9 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.3) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
5.87
p-value
2.53e-08

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
TOR 84.5–88.5 ATL 83.9–88.1 Overlap 3.56 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 85.1–88.2 ATL 84.2–87.6 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.2–87.7 ATL 84.2–87.2 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.3–87.7 ATL 84.3–86.9 Overlap 1.53 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.4–87.4 ATL 84.5–86.8 Overlap 1.39 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
4.26
p-value
3.61e-05

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
TOR 83.5–89.2 ATL 83.1–87.8 Overlap 4.3 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 83.9–88.7 ATL 83.5–87.4 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.2–88.4 ATL 83.7–87.1 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.5–88.2 ATL 83.9–87.0 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 84.7–88.0 ATL 84.1–86.8 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
4.89
p-value
2.53e-06

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
TOR 84.1–88.9 ATL 83.1–88.6 Overlap 4.52 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.5–88.5 ATL 83.8–88.2 Overlap 3.72 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.7–88.3 ATL 84.1–87.8 Overlap 3.08 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 84.9–88.1 ATL 84.4–87.3 Overlap 2.43 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 85.1–87.9 ATL 84.5–87.1 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
4.12
p-value
6.22e-05

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 — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–89.4 83.2–88.4 4.69 pts — No
90% 84.2–88.9 83.6–88.0 3.81 pts — No
85% 84.5–88.6 83.9–87.8 3.25 pts — No
80% 84.7–88.4 84.1–87.5 2.81 pts — No
75% 84.9–88.2 84.3–87.4 2.44 pts — No
Reg — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–89.7 82.8–88.5 4.72 pts — No
90% 84.3–89.3 83.2–88.1 3.79 pts — No
85% 84.6–88.9 83.5–87.8 3.17 pts — No
80% 84.8–88.7 83.8–87.5 2.7 pts — No
75% 85.0–88.5 84.0–87.3 2.31 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–88.8 83.1–87.6 3.92 pts — No
90% 84.1–88.4 83.5–87.2 3.15 pts — No
85% 84.3–88.1 83.7–87.0 2.65 pts — No
80% 84.5–87.9 83.9–86.8 2.26 pts — No
75% 84.7–87.7 84.0–86.7 1.94 pts — No
Kevin — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–88.7 82.9–88.1 4.16 pts — No
90% 84.4–88.3 83.3–87.7 3.35 pts — No
85% 84.6–88.1 83.6–87.4 2.83 pts — No
80% 84.8–87.9 83.8–87.2 2.42 pts — No
75% 85.0–87.7 84.0–87.1 2.09 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–89.0 82.6–87.3 3.41 pts — No
90% 84.3–88.6 82.9–86.9 2.62 pts — No
85% 84.6–88.3 83.2–86.7 2.1 pts — No
80% 84.8–88.1 83.4–86.5 1.71 pts — No
75% 84.9–87.9 83.5–86.3 1.38 pts — No
Ice — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–89.3 83.5–87.2 2.49 pts Yes No
90% 85.0–87.9 83.7–86.9 1.86 pts Yes No
85% 85.1–87.6 83.9–86.6 1.5 pts Yes No
80% 85.3–87.4 84.1–86.5 1.27 pts Yes No
75% 85.4–87.4 84.2–86.4 1.02 pts Yes No
Jamal — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–88.9 82.9–87.7 4.0 pts — No
90% 84.2–88.5 83.3–87.4 3.19 pts — No
85% 84.4–88.2 83.5–87.1 2.67 pts — No
80% 84.6–88.0 83.7–86.9 2.26 pts — No
75% 84.8–87.8 83.9–86.7 1.93 pts — No
Jordan — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–88.8 83.0–87.5 3.51 pts — No
90% 84.4–88.4 83.3–87.2 2.76 pts — No
85% 84.6–88.1 83.6–86.9 2.27 pts — No
80% 84.8–87.9 83.7–86.7 1.9 pts — No
75% 85.0–87.8 83.9–86.6 1.59 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–89.0 82.4–88.1 4.37 pts — No
90% 84.2–88.6 82.9–87.6 3.49 pts — No
85% 84.4–88.3 83.2–87.4 2.91 pts — No
80% 84.7–88.1 83.4–87.1 2.47 pts — No
75% 84.8–87.9 83.6–86.9 2.1 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–88.5 83.9–88.1 3.56 pts Yes No
90% 85.1–88.2 84.2–87.6 2.51 pts Yes No
85% 85.2–87.7 84.2–87.2 2.0 pts Yes No
80% 85.3–87.7 84.3–86.9 1.53 pts Yes No
75% 85.4–87.4 84.5–86.8 1.39 pts Yes No
Lexi — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–89.2 83.1–87.8 4.3 pts — No
90% 83.9–88.7 83.5–87.4 3.46 pts — No
85% 84.2–88.4 83.7–87.1 2.92 pts — No
80% 84.5–88.2 83.9–87.0 2.5 pts — No
75% 84.7–88.0 84.1–86.8 2.15 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 87, ATL 94
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.1–88.9 83.1–88.6 4.52 pts Yes No
90% 84.5–88.5 83.8–88.2 3.72 pts Yes No
85% 84.7–88.3 84.1–87.8 3.08 pts Yes No
80% 84.9–88.1 84.4–87.3 2.43 pts Yes No
75% 85.1–87.9 84.5–87.1 2.01 pts Yes No