Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 26, 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

Atlanta Dream at Golden State Valkyries

ATL 75 – GS 78

June 26, 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 ATL at GS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

ATL — one dot per model GS — one dot per model Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
ATL 84.6–88.6 GS 78.7–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 5.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.9–88.2 GS 79.6–83.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 5.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.1–88.0 GS 79.9–82.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 5.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–87.9 GS 80.0–82.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 5.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.4–87.7 GS 80.2–82.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 5.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
28.70
p-value
2.32e-59

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 Tol Warning
ATL 83.3–89.1 GS 78.2–84.9 Overlap 1.61 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 84.9–88.4 GS 78.8–84.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.1–88.2 GS 79.1–84.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–88.0 GS 79.4–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.4–87.9 GS 79.6–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
22.85
p-value
2.53e-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.

Dr. Wallace
ATL 83.6–88.9 GS 78.3–84.2 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 5.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.0–88.5 GS 78.8–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 5.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.3–88.2 GS 79.1–83.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 5.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.5–88.0 GS 79.3–83.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 5.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.7–87.8 GS 79.5–83.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 5.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
25.27
p-value
9.25e-57

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
ATL 83.6–88.9 GS 78.4–84.0 Overlap 0.45 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.0–88.5 GS 78.8–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.3–88.2 GS 79.1–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.5–88.0 GS 79.4–83.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.7–87.8 GS 79.6–82.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
26.25
p-value
4.94e-59

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
ATL 83.5–88.6 GS 78.6–84.8 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.8–87.6 GS 79.1–84.3 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.1–87.4 GS 79.4–83.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.3–86.9 GS 79.7–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.4–86.8 GS 79.9–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
19.79
p-value
3.68e-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.

Ice
ATL 82.9–88.8 GS 78.5–84.5 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–88.3 GS 79.0–84.0 Overlap 0.59 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.7–88.0 GS 79.3–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.9–87.7 GS 79.5–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.1–87.6 GS 79.7–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
21.13
p-value
1.30e-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.

Jamal Tol Warning
ATL 83.3–88.1 GS 78.3–84.5 Overlap 1.18 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.4) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.7–87.7 GS 78.8–84.0 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.4) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.9–87.7 GS 79.1–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.4) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.2–87.5 GS 79.4–83.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.4) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.4–87.3 GS 79.6–83.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.4) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
19.93
p-value
1.01e-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.

Jordan
ATL 83.0–88.6 GS 78.5–84.2 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–88.2 GS 79.0–83.7 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.7–87.9 GS 79.3–83.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.9–87.7 GS 79.5–83.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.1–87.5 GS 79.7–83.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
22.34
p-value
1.79e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
ATL 82.4–88.8 GS 78.3–84.3 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–88.3 GS 78.8–83.8 Overlap 0.89 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.3–88.0 GS 79.1–83.5 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.5–87.7 GS 79.4–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.8–87.5 GS 79.6–83.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
19.91
p-value
1.32e-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.

Maya Jefferson
ATL 83.0–88.7 GS 78.3–84.3 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–88.2 GS 78.8–83.8 Overlap 0.32 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.8–87.9 GS 79.1–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.0–87.7 GS 79.3–83.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.2–87.5 GS 79.5–83.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.3) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
22.44
p-value
1.26e-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.

Lexi Tol Warning
ATL 83.0–88.2 GS 77.8–84.4 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–87.8 GS 78.3–83.9 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.6–87.5 GS 78.6–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.6–87.3 GS 78.9–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.7–87.3 GS 79.1–83.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
19.00
p-value
3.01e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
ATL 82.3–91.6 GS 77.5–84.8 Overlap 2.47 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.1–90.9 GS 78.1–84.2 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.6–90.4 GS 78.5–83.8 Overlap 0.27 pts Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.0–90.0 GS 78.8–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 84.3–89.7 GS 79.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 75, GS 78

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by 5.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
19.94
p-value
9.60e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.6–88.6 78.7–83.3 — pts Yes No
90% 84.9–88.2 79.6–83.1 — pts Yes No
85% 85.1–88.0 79.9–82.9 — pts Yes No
80% 85.3–87.9 80.0–82.8 — pts Yes No
75% 85.4–87.7 80.2–82.7 — pts Yes No
Reg — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.3–89.1 78.2–84.9 1.61 pts Yes No
90% 84.9–88.4 78.8–84.3 — pts Yes No
85% 85.1–88.2 79.1–84.0 — pts Yes No
80% 85.3–88.0 79.4–83.7 — pts Yes No
75% 85.4–87.9 79.6–83.5 — pts Yes No
Dr. Wallace — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.6–88.9 78.3–84.2 0.65 pts — No
90% 84.0–88.5 78.8–83.7 — pts — No
85% 84.3–88.2 79.1–83.4 — pts — No
80% 84.5–88.0 79.3–83.2 — pts — No
75% 84.7–87.8 79.5–83.0 — pts — No
Kevin — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.6–88.9 78.4–84.0 0.45 pts — No
90% 84.0–88.5 78.8–83.6 — pts — No
85% 84.3–88.2 79.1–83.3 — pts — No
80% 84.5–88.0 79.4–83.0 — pts — No
75% 84.7–87.8 79.6–82.8 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–88.6 78.6–84.8 1.22 pts Yes No
90% 83.8–87.6 79.1–84.3 0.42 pts Yes No
85% 84.1–87.4 79.4–83.9 — pts Yes No
80% 84.3–86.9 79.7–83.7 — pts Yes No
75% 84.4–86.8 79.9–83.5 — pts Yes No
Ice — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.9–88.8 78.5–84.5 1.54 pts — No
90% 83.4–88.3 79.0–84.0 0.59 pts — No
85% 83.7–88.0 79.3–83.7 — pts — No
80% 83.9–87.7 79.5–83.5 — pts — No
75% 84.1–87.6 79.7–83.3 — pts — No
Jamal — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.3–88.1 78.3–84.5 1.18 pts Yes No
90% 83.7–87.7 78.8–84.0 0.31 pts Yes No
85% 83.9–87.7 79.1–83.7 — pts Yes No
80% 84.2–87.5 79.4–83.4 — pts Yes No
75% 84.4–87.3 79.6–83.2 — pts Yes No
Jordan — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–88.6 78.5–84.2 1.25 pts — No
90% 83.4–88.2 79.0–83.7 0.33 pts — No
85% 83.7–87.9 79.3–83.4 — pts — No
80% 83.9–87.7 79.5–83.2 — pts — No
75% 84.1–87.5 79.7–83.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–88.8 78.3–84.3 1.88 pts — No
90% 83.0–88.3 78.8–83.8 0.89 pts — No
85% 83.3–88.0 79.1–83.5 0.24 pts — No
80% 83.5–87.7 79.4–83.3 — pts — No
75% 83.8–87.5 79.6–83.1 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–88.7 78.3–84.3 1.25 pts — No
90% 83.5–88.2 78.8–83.8 0.32 pts — No
85% 83.8–87.9 79.1–83.5 — pts — No
80% 84.0–87.7 79.3–83.2 — pts — No
75% 84.2–87.5 79.5–83.0 — pts — No
Lexi — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–88.2 77.8–84.4 1.46 pts Yes No
90% 83.5–87.8 78.3–83.9 0.42 pts Yes No
85% 83.6–87.5 78.6–83.5 — pts Yes No
80% 83.6–87.3 78.9–83.3 — pts Yes No
75% 83.7–87.3 79.1–83.0 — pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — ATL at GS — Actual: ATL 75, GS 78
Level ATL range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–91.6 77.5–84.8 2.47 pts — No
90% 83.1–90.9 78.1–84.2 1.14 pts — No
85% 83.6–90.4 78.5–83.8 0.27 pts — No
80% 84.0–90.0 78.8–83.6 — pts — No
75% 84.3–89.7 79.0–83.3 — pts — No