Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 24, 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

Minnesota Lynx at Washington Mystics

MIN 78 – WAS 76

June 24, 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 MIN at WAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model WAS — one dot per model Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Vince Chambers
MIN 85.7–91.4 WAS 82.0–86.9 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–90.9 WAS 82.4–86.5 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.5–90.6 WAS 82.6–86.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.4) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–90.4 WAS 82.8–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.4) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–90.2 WAS 83.0–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.4) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
22.36
p-value
5.44e-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.

Reg
MIN 85.9–91.2 WAS 80.8–87.1 Overlap 1.21 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.3–90.7 WAS 81.3–86.6 Overlap 0.28 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.6–90.5 WAS 81.6–86.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–90.2 WAS 81.9–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–90.1 WAS 82.1–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.0) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
22.52
p-value
3.45e-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.

Dr. Wallace
MIN 86.1–90.0 WAS 81.4–86.9 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.4–89.7 WAS 81.8–86.5 Overlap 0.08 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.6–89.5 WAS 82.1–86.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.3 WAS 82.3–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–89.2 WAS 82.5–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
23.19
p-value
9.38e-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.

Kevin Tol Warning
MIN 85.3–91.2 WAS 80.8–85.6 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–90.7 WAS 81.3–85.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–90.4 WAS 82.0–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–90.2 WAS 82.5–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–90.0 WAS 82.6–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
21.67
p-value
7.17e-49

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
MIN 84.3–89.3 WAS 80.2–86.7 Overlap 2.44 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–89.2 WAS 80.9–85.9 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.0 WAS 82.2–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.8–88.7 WAS 82.4–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–88.6 WAS 82.6–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
16.03
p-value
9.60e-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
MIN 84.4–91.0 WAS 80.1–86.9 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 3.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–90.4 WAS 80.9–85.9 Overlap 0.98 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.2–90.1 WAS 81.8–85.4 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.5–89.8 WAS 82.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.7–89.6 WAS 82.7–85.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
17.20
p-value
7.69e-38

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

Jamal Tol Warning
MIN 83.7–90.2 WAS 80.3–85.8 Overlap 2.08 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.8–89.6 WAS 81.6–85.6 Overlap 0.78 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.0–89.4 WAS 82.1–85.6 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.1–89.4 WAS 82.2–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.1 WAS 82.5–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
17.49
p-value
3.32e-38

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

Jordan Tol Warning
MIN 84.5–89.9 WAS 80.7–85.8 Overlap 1.28 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–89.4 WAS 80.9–85.5 Overlap 0.35 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.3–89.2 WAS 81.2–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.0 WAS 81.9–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–88.8 WAS 82.0–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
19.01
p-value
1.90e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
MIN 85.0–90.4 WAS 80.4–87.0 Overlap 1.97 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.0 WAS 80.9–86.4 Overlap 1.0 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–89.7 WAS 81.3–86.1 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.9–89.5 WAS 81.5–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.3 WAS 81.7–85.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — 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
19.14
p-value
3.78e-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
MIN 85.1–90.7 WAS 80.9–86.5 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–90.2 WAS 81.4–86.1 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–90.0 WAS 81.7–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.7 WAS 81.9–85.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.2–89.5 WAS 82.1–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
21.14
p-value
1.17e-47

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 Tol Warning
MIN 85.9–90.1 WAS 80.8–86.0 Overlap 0.12 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

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.

MIN 86.2–89.8 WAS 81.3–85.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

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.

MIN 86.3–89.5 WAS 81.8–85.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

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.

MIN 86.4–89.1 WAS 82.4–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

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.

MIN 86.5–89.0 WAS 82.7–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

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
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
19.33
p-value
2.98e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
MIN 85.0–91.0 WAS 81.3–86.2 Overlap 1.2 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.6 WAS 81.7–85.8 Overlap 0.32 pts Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–90.2 WAS 81.9–85.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.0–90.0 WAS 82.1–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.2–89.8 WAS 82.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
22.21
p-value
3.95e-49

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 — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.7–91.4 82.0–86.9 1.14 pts — No
90% 86.2–90.9 82.4–86.5 0.29 pts — No
85% 86.5–90.6 82.6–86.2 — pts — No
80% 86.7–90.4 82.8–86.0 — pts — No
75% 86.9–90.2 83.0–85.8 — pts — No
Reg — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–91.2 80.8–87.1 1.21 pts — No
90% 86.3–90.7 81.3–86.6 0.28 pts — No
85% 86.6–90.5 81.6–86.3 — pts — No
80% 86.8–90.2 81.9–86.0 — pts — No
75% 87.0–90.1 82.1–85.8 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.1–90.0 81.4–86.9 0.84 pts — No
90% 86.4–89.7 81.8–86.5 0.08 pts — No
85% 86.6–89.5 82.1–86.2 — pts — No
80% 86.8–89.3 82.3–86.0 — pts — No
75% 86.9–89.2 82.5–85.8 — pts — No
Kevin — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.3–91.2 80.8–85.6 0.31 pts Yes No
90% 85.8–90.7 81.3–85.5 — pts Yes No
85% 86.1–90.4 82.0–85.4 — pts Yes No
80% 86.3–90.2 82.5–85.3 — pts Yes No
75% 86.5–90.0 82.6–85.1 — pts Yes No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.3–89.3 80.2–86.7 2.44 pts Yes No
90% 85.3–89.2 80.9–85.9 0.62 pts Yes No
85% 85.7–89.0 82.2–85.4 — pts Yes No
80% 85.8–88.7 82.4–85.2 — pts Yes No
75% 86.1–88.6 82.6–85.1 — pts Yes No
Ice — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–91.0 80.1–86.9 2.57 pts Yes No
90% 84.9–90.4 80.9–85.9 0.98 pts Yes No
85% 85.2–90.1 81.8–85.4 0.18 pts Yes No
80% 85.5–89.8 82.3–85.2 — pts Yes No
75% 85.7–89.6 82.7–85.0 — pts Yes No
Jamal — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–90.2 80.3–85.8 2.08 pts Yes No
90% 84.8–89.6 81.6–85.6 0.78 pts Yes No
85% 85.0–89.4 82.1–85.6 0.58 pts Yes No
80% 86.1–89.4 82.2–85.4 — pts Yes No
75% 86.3–89.1 82.5–85.2 — pts Yes No
Jordan — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.9 80.7–85.8 1.28 pts Yes No
90% 85.1–89.4 80.9–85.5 0.35 pts Yes No
85% 85.3–89.2 81.2–85.3 — pts Yes No
80% 86.1–89.0 81.9–85.2 — pts Yes No
75% 86.3–88.8 82.0–85.1 — pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–90.4 80.4–87.0 1.97 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.0 80.9–86.4 1.0 pts — No
85% 85.7–89.7 81.3–86.1 0.37 pts — No
80% 85.9–89.5 81.5–85.8 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.3 81.7–85.6 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.1–90.7 80.9–86.5 1.46 pts — No
90% 85.5–90.2 81.4–86.1 0.56 pts — No
85% 85.8–90.0 81.7–85.8 — pts — No
80% 86.1–89.7 81.9–85.6 — pts — No
75% 86.2–89.5 82.1–85.4 — pts — No
Lexi — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–90.1 80.8–86.0 0.12 pts Yes No
90% 86.2–89.8 81.3–85.6 — pts Yes No
85% 86.3–89.5 81.8–85.5 — pts Yes No
80% 86.4–89.1 82.4–85.3 — pts Yes No
75% 86.5–89.0 82.7–85.2 — pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at WAS — Actual: MIN 78, WAS 76
Level MIN range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–91.0 81.3–86.2 1.2 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.6 81.7–85.8 0.32 pts — No
85% 85.8–90.2 81.9–85.5 — pts — No
80% 86.0–90.0 82.1–85.3 — pts — No
75% 86.2–89.8 82.3–85.2 — pts — No