Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 2, 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

Dallas Wings at Connecticut Sun

DAL 86 – CON 83

July 2, 2026 · Final

Darren "Dimes" Lin

Best model for this game

Darren "Dimes" Lin
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 DAL at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

DAL — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Vince Chambers
DAL 83.8–87.9 CON 78.9–83.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.8–87.5 CON 79.3–83.1 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–87.1 CON 79.5–82.9 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.9 CON 79.7–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–86.6 CON 79.8–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
28.20
p-value
4.19e-72

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
DAL 83.1–87.8 CON 79.0–83.9 Overlap 0.76 pts Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.5–87.4 CON 79.4–83.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.7–87.2 CON 79.7–83.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–87.0 CON 79.9–83.0 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.1–86.8 CON 80.0–82.9 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
26.87
p-value
6.51e-69

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
DAL 83.0–87.4 CON 79.3–83.0 Overlap 0.04 pts Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.4–87.1 CON 79.6–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.6–86.9 CON 79.8–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.8–86.7 CON 79.9–82.4 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–86.5 CON 80.0–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
31.57
p-value
1.97e-79

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
DAL 83.1–87.5 CON 79.2–83.0 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.5–87.1 CON 79.5–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.7–86.9 CON 79.7–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–86.7 CON 79.8–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.6 CON 80.0–82.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
32.78
p-value
2.29e-82

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
DAL 83.7–86.6 CON 78.4–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 4.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.8–86.4 CON 78.7–82.0 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–85.8 CON 78.9–81.8 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–85.7 CON 79.0–81.6 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–85.6 CON 79.2–81.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 84.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.3) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
40.44
p-value
1.57e-96

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
DAL 83.2–87.1 CON 79.1–82.8 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.5–86.8 CON 79.4–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.7–86.6 CON 79.6–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–86.4 CON 79.7–82.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.3 CON 79.9–82.1 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
35.18
p-value
1.65e-88

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
DAL 83.5–87.7 CON 78.8–83.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.8–87.1 CON 79.1–82.9 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.6 CON 79.4–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.1–86.3 CON 79.5–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–86.2 CON 79.7–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
29.27
p-value
5.89e-75

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
DAL 83.9–87.6 CON 79.3–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.3 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.1–87.2 CON 79.6–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.3–86.9 CON 79.8–82.3 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.4–86.4 CON 79.9–82.1 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.4–86.3 CON 80.0–82.0 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
36.22
p-value
1.19e-88

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
DAL 83.6–87.2 CON 79.5–83.7 Overlap 0.12 pts Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.7–86.7 CON 79.8–82.9 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.5 CON 80.0–82.6 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–86.4 CON 80.2–82.4 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.3–86.3 CON 80.2–82.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — 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
26.13
p-value
5.44e-67

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
DAL 83.9–86.9 CON 78.9–83.1 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.7 CON 79.2–82.8 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–86.5 CON 79.5–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.3–86.4 CON 79.6–82.4 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.4–86.1 CON 79.8–82.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
34.40
p-value
1.03e-85

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
DAL 83.1–87.6 CON 78.8–83.5 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

DAL 83.4–87.3 CON 79.2–83.2 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.7–87.0 CON 79.4–82.9 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 83.9–86.8 CON 79.6–82.7 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–86.7 CON 79.8–82.6 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
28.72
p-value
1.60e-73

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
DAL 83.7–87.9 CON 78.8–83.4 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.0–87.6 CON 79.2–83.0 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.2–87.4 CON 79.4–82.8 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.4–87.2 CON 79.6–82.6 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

DAL 84.6–87.1 CON 79.8–82.5 No overlap Actual: DAL 86, CON 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
33.96
p-value
1.15e-85

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 — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–87.9 78.9–83.5 — pts — Yes
90% 83.8–87.5 79.3–83.1 — pts — Yes
85% 83.9–87.1 79.5–82.9 — pts — No
80% 84.0–86.9 79.7–82.7 — pts — No
75% 84.2–86.6 79.8–82.5 — pts — No
Reg — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–87.8 79.0–83.9 0.76 pts — Yes
90% 83.5–87.4 79.4–83.5 — pts — Yes
85% 83.7–87.2 79.7–83.2 — pts — Yes
80% 83.9–87.0 79.9–83.0 — pts — Yes
75% 84.1–86.8 80.0–82.9 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–87.4 79.3–83.0 0.04 pts — Yes
90% 83.4–87.1 79.6–82.7 — pts — No
85% 83.6–86.9 79.8–82.5 — pts — No
80% 83.8–86.7 79.9–82.4 — pts — No
75% 83.9–86.5 80.0–82.3 — pts — No
Kevin — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–87.5 79.2–83.0 — pts — Yes
90% 83.5–87.1 79.5–82.7 — pts — No
85% 83.7–86.9 79.7–82.5 — pts — No
80% 83.9–86.7 79.8–82.3 — pts — No
75% 84.0–86.6 80.0–82.2 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–86.6 78.4–82.3 — pts — No
90% 83.8–86.4 78.7–82.0 — pts — No
85% 83.9–85.8 78.9–81.8 — pts — No
80% 84.0–85.7 79.0–81.6 — pts — No
75% 84.2–85.6 79.2–81.5 — pts — No
Ice — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–87.1 79.1–82.8 — pts — No
90% 83.5–86.8 79.4–82.5 — pts — No
85% 83.7–86.6 79.6–82.3 — pts — No
80% 83.9–86.4 79.7–82.2 — pts — No
75% 84.0–86.3 79.9–82.1 — pts — No
Jamal — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–87.7 78.8–83.3 — pts — Yes
90% 83.8–87.1 79.1–82.9 — pts — No
85% 84.0–86.6 79.4–82.7 — pts — No
80% 84.1–86.3 79.5–82.5 — pts — No
75% 84.2–86.2 79.7–82.3 — pts — No
Jordan — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–87.6 79.3–82.7 — pts — No
90% 84.1–87.2 79.6–82.5 — pts — No
85% 84.3–86.9 79.8–82.3 — pts — No
80% 84.4–86.4 79.9–82.1 — pts — No
75% 84.4–86.3 80.0–82.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.6–87.2 79.5–83.7 0.12 pts — Yes
90% 83.7–86.7 79.8–82.9 — pts — No
85% 84.0–86.5 80.0–82.6 — pts — No
80% 84.2–86.4 80.2–82.4 — pts — No
75% 84.3–86.3 80.2–82.2 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–86.9 78.9–83.1 — pts — Yes
90% 84.0–86.7 79.2–82.8 — pts — No
85% 84.2–86.5 79.5–82.5 — pts — No
80% 84.3–86.4 79.6–82.4 — pts — No
75% 84.4–86.1 79.8–82.2 — pts — No
Lexi — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–87.6 78.8–83.5 0.48 pts — Yes
90% 83.4–87.3 79.2–83.2 — pts — Yes
85% 83.7–87.0 79.4–82.9 — pts — No
80% 83.9–86.8 79.6–82.7 — pts — No
75% 84.0–86.7 79.8–82.6 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — DAL at CON — Actual: DAL 86, CON 83
Level DAL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–87.9 78.8–83.4 — pts — Yes
90% 84.0–87.6 79.2–83.0 — pts — Yes
85% 84.2–87.4 79.4–82.8 — pts — No
80% 84.4–87.2 79.6–82.6 — pts — No
75% 84.6–87.1 79.8–82.5 — pts — No