Clay's Almanac
WNBA · June 28, 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 Dallas Wings

MIN 85 – DAL 77

June 28, 2026 · Final

Reg

Best model for this game

Reg
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 DAL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model DAL — one dot per model Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
MIN 85.6–90.5 DAL 83.0–86.3 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–90.1 DAL 83.2–86.3 Overlap 0.36 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.2–89.8 DAL 83.8–86.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) — by 3.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–89.6 DAL 84.0–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) — by 3.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.6–89.4 DAL 84.1–85.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.8) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
20.07
p-value
1.49e-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
MIN 85.2–91.2 DAL 82.2–87.8 Overlap 2.6 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 85.0) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–90.7 DAL 82.6–87.3 Overlap 1.66 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 85.0) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.0–90.4 DAL 82.9–87.0 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 85.0) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–90.2 DAL 83.1–86.8 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 85.0) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.4–90.0 DAL 83.3–86.6 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 85.0) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
15.83
p-value
3.59e-34

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 84.9–90.7 DAL 82.8–86.5 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.2 DAL 83.1–86.2 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.9 DAL 83.3–86.0 Overlap 0.34 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.9–89.7 DAL 83.4–85.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 3.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.5 DAL 83.5–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
18.56
p-value
8.37e-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.

Kevin Tol Warning
MIN 84.0–90.5 DAL 82.3–87.1 Overlap 3.05 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.6–89.7 DAL 82.7–86.7 Overlap 2.12 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.2–89.4 DAL 82.9–86.5 Overlap 1.29 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–89.2 DAL 83.1–86.3 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.2 DAL 83.3–86.1 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
13.80
p-value
1.24e-27

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
MIN 83.5–90.2 DAL 82.1–86.8 Overlap 3.31 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.1–89.7 DAL 82.5–86.4 Overlap 2.39 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.4–89.3 DAL 82.7–86.2 Overlap 1.79 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.7–89.1 DAL 82.9–86.0 Overlap 1.33 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–88.8 DAL 83.1–85.8 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
11.90
p-value
5.07e-23

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
MIN 84.0–90.4 DAL 82.2–86.6 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.5–89.8 DAL 82.6–86.3 Overlap 1.77 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.8–89.5 DAL 82.8–86.0 Overlap 1.21 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–89.3 DAL 83.0–85.9 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.3–89.0 DAL 83.1–85.7 Overlap 0.41 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.4) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
14.34
p-value
3.87e-29

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 84.2–90.3 DAL 82.0–85.9 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.5–89.8 DAL 82.5–85.7 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.8–89.4 DAL 82.8–85.6 Overlap 0.81 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.2–89.0 DAL 82.9–85.6 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.4–88.8 DAL 83.1–85.5 Overlap 0.09 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
14.03
p-value
4.08e-28

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 83.2–90.2 DAL 81.9–87.0 Overlap 3.8 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.0–89.5 DAL 82.3–86.6 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.4–89.3 DAL 82.6–86.3 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.8–89.1 DAL 82.8–86.1 Overlap 1.36 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.0–89.0 DAL 83.0–86.0 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.3) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
11.68
p-value
5.51e-22

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 84.0–91.0 DAL 82.1–87.0 Overlap 3.04 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 84.5–90.5 DAL 82.5–86.6 Overlap 2.08 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–90.1 DAL 82.7–86.4 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.2–89.8 DAL 82.9–86.2 Overlap 0.97 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.4–89.6 DAL 83.1–86.0 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
13.88
p-value
4.91e-28

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
MIN 83.8–89.7 DAL 82.6–86.7 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.1–89.4 DAL 82.9–86.4 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.6–89.3 DAL 83.1–86.2 Overlap 1.53 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–89.2 DAL 83.3–86.0 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–89.2 DAL 83.4–85.9 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.6) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
12.64
p-value
9.03e-24

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 84.2–90.1 DAL 82.1–86.9 Overlap 2.68 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.7–89.6 DAL 82.5–86.5 Overlap 1.89 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–89.2 DAL 82.8–86.3 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–89.0 DAL 83.0–86.1 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–89.0 DAL 83.1–85.9 Overlap 0.1 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.5) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
14.26
p-value
6.71e-29

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 84.4–90.9 DAL 82.6–86.8 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–90.4 DAL 83.0–86.4 Overlap 1.5 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.3–90.1 DAL 83.2–86.2 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.5–89.8 DAL 83.3–86.0 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.6 DAL 83.5–85.9 Overlap 0.15 pts Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Dallas Wings (avg. 84.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
15.57
p-value
1.15e-31

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 DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.6–90.5 83.0–86.3 0.77 pts Yes No
90% 86.0–90.1 83.2–86.3 0.36 pts Yes No
85% 86.2–89.8 83.8–86.2 — pts Yes No
80% 86.4–89.6 84.0–86.0 — pts Yes No
75% 86.6–89.4 84.1–85.9 — pts Yes No
Reg — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.2–91.2 82.2–87.8 2.6 pts — No
90% 85.6–90.7 82.6–87.3 1.66 pts — No
85% 86.0–90.4 82.9–87.0 1.05 pts — No
80% 86.2–90.2 83.1–86.8 0.58 pts — No
75% 86.4–90.0 83.3–86.6 0.19 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–90.7 82.8–86.5 1.6 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.2 83.1–86.2 0.84 pts — No
85% 85.7–89.9 83.3–86.0 0.34 pts — No
80% 85.9–89.7 83.4–85.9 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.5 83.5–85.7 — pts — No
Kevin — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–90.5 82.3–87.1 3.05 pts Yes No
90% 84.6–89.7 82.7–86.7 2.12 pts Yes No
85% 85.2–89.4 82.9–86.5 1.29 pts Yes No
80% 85.5–89.2 83.1–86.3 0.73 pts Yes No
75% 85.7–89.2 83.3–86.1 0.37 pts Yes No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–90.2 82.1–86.8 3.31 pts — No
90% 84.1–89.7 82.5–86.4 2.39 pts — No
85% 84.4–89.3 82.7–86.2 1.79 pts — No
80% 84.7–89.1 82.9–86.0 1.33 pts — No
75% 84.9–88.8 83.1–85.8 0.94 pts — No
Ice — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–90.4 82.2–86.6 2.63 pts — No
90% 84.5–89.8 82.6–86.3 1.77 pts — No
85% 84.8–89.5 82.8–86.0 1.21 pts — No
80% 85.1–89.3 83.0–85.9 0.77 pts — No
75% 85.3–89.0 83.1–85.7 0.41 pts — No
Jamal — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–90.3 82.0–85.9 1.76 pts Yes No
90% 84.5–89.8 82.5–85.7 1.22 pts Yes No
85% 84.8–89.4 82.8–85.6 0.81 pts Yes No
80% 85.2–89.0 82.9–85.6 0.37 pts Yes No
75% 85.4–88.8 83.1–85.5 0.09 pts Yes No
Jordan — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–90.2 81.9–87.0 3.8 pts Yes No
90% 84.0–89.5 82.3–86.6 2.55 pts Yes No
85% 84.4–89.3 82.6–86.3 1.88 pts Yes No
80% 84.8–89.1 82.8–86.1 1.36 pts Yes No
75% 85.0–89.0 83.0–86.0 0.91 pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–91.0 82.1–87.0 3.04 pts — No
90% 84.5–90.5 82.5–86.6 2.08 pts — No
85% 84.9–90.1 82.7–86.4 1.45 pts — No
80% 85.2–89.8 82.9–86.2 0.97 pts — No
75% 85.4–89.6 83.1–86.0 0.56 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–89.7 82.6–86.7 2.95 pts Yes No
90% 84.1–89.4 82.9–86.4 2.24 pts Yes No
85% 84.6–89.3 83.1–86.2 1.53 pts Yes No
80% 84.9–89.2 83.3–86.0 1.13 pts Yes No
75% 85.7–89.2 83.4–85.9 0.19 pts Yes No
Lexi — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–90.1 82.1–86.9 2.68 pts Yes No
90% 84.7–89.6 82.5–86.5 1.89 pts Yes No
85% 84.9–89.2 82.8–86.3 1.38 pts Yes No
80% 85.6–89.0 83.0–86.1 0.48 pts Yes No
75% 85.8–89.0 83.1–85.9 0.1 pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at DAL — Actual: MIN 85, DAL 77
Level MIN range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–90.9 82.6–86.8 2.35 pts — No
90% 84.9–90.4 83.0–86.4 1.5 pts — No
85% 85.3–90.1 83.2–86.2 0.94 pts — No
80% 85.5–89.8 83.3–86.0 0.51 pts — No
75% 85.7–89.6 83.5–85.9 0.15 pts — No