Clay's Almanac

Vince Chambers

MIN 85.5–90.1 CON 79.8–83.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.0 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.9–89.7 CON 80.2–83.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.5 CON 80.4–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.3 CON 80.5–83.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.1 CON 80.6–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic: 44.19
p-value: 1.10e-101

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 85.3–91.0 CON 79.2–84.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.7–90.6 CON 79.6–83.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.0–90.3 CON 79.9–83.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–90.0 CON 80.1–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.8 CON 80.2–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Reg (#2)
t-statistic: 38.75
p-value: 1.68e-91

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 85.8–90.2 CON 79.4–83.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.8 CON 79.7–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–89.6 CON 80.0–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.4 CON 80.1–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–89.3 CON 80.3–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic: 47.36
p-value: 2.38e-108

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

MIN 86.0–90.2 CON 79.7–83.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.4 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.9 CON 80.0–83.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.7 CON 80.2–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–89.5 CON 80.4–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.3 CON 80.5–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Kevin (#4)
t-statistic: 48.44
p-value: 4.28e-110

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 85.6–89.7 CON 78.7–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.8) — by 6.9 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.9–89.4 CON 79.0–82.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.8) — by 6.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.2 CON 79.2–82.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.8) — by 6.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.0 CON 79.4–82.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.8) — by 6.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–88.9 CON 79.5–82.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.8) — by 6.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic: 51.93
p-value: 9.86e-116

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 85.6–89.8 CON 79.7–83.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.9–89.5 CON 80.0–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.2 CON 80.2–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.1 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–88.9 CON 80.5–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Ice (#6)
t-statistic: 47.14
p-value: 9.81e-108

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

MIN 86.8–90.1 CON 80.3–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–89.7 CON 80.4–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.4 CON 80.4–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.3 CON 80.5–82.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.1–89.2 CON 80.6–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 6.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Jamal (#7)
t-statistic: 49.78
p-value: 8.61e-112

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

MIN 86.4–89.8 CON 79.6–83.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.2 CON 79.9–83.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.0 CON 80.2–83.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–88.9 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–88.8 CON 80.4–82.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Jordan (#8)
t-statistic: 46.21
p-value: 2.91e-106

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 85.7–90.4 CON 79.2–84.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–90.0 CON 79.6–83.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.8 CON 79.8–83.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.6 CON 80.0–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–89.4 CON 80.2–83.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic: 41.70
p-value: 1.14e-98

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 86.3–90.2 CON 79.6–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.4 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.6 CON 80.0–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.2 CON 80.2–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–89.0 CON 80.3–82.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.0 CON 80.4–82.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 6.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic: 43.86
p-value: 1.66e-102

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

MIN 85.5–90.2 CON 79.7–83.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.9–89.8 CON 80.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.6 CON 80.2–83.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.4 CON 80.4–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.2 CON 80.5–82.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 6.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Lexi (#11)
t-statistic: 45.06
p-value: 4.84e-103

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 85.6–91.2 CON 79.4–83.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–90.8 CON 79.8–83.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–90.5 CON 80.0–83.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.6–90.3 CON 80.2–83.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–90.1 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, CON 80

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic: 42.88
p-value: 3.82e-97

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.

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.5–90.1	79.8–83.7	— pts	—	Yes
90%	85.9–89.7	80.2–83.4	— pts	—	No
85%	86.1–89.5	80.4–83.2	— pts	—	No
80%	86.3–89.3	80.5–83.1	— pts	—	No
75%	86.5–89.1	80.6–82.9	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.3–91.0	79.2–84.0	— pts	—	Yes
90%	85.7–90.6	79.6–83.6	— pts	—	Yes
85%	86.0–90.3	79.9–83.4	— pts	—	Yes
80%	86.3–90.0	80.1–83.2	— pts	—	No
75%	86.5–89.8	80.2–83.0	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.8–90.2	79.4–83.6	— pts	—	Yes
90%	86.1–89.8	79.7–83.2	— pts	—	No
85%	86.4–89.6	80.0–83.0	— pts	—	No
80%	86.5–89.4	80.1–82.9	— pts	—	No
75%	86.7–89.3	80.3–82.7	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	86.0–90.2	79.7–83.7	— pts	—	Yes
90%	86.3–89.9	80.0–83.4	— pts	—	No
85%	86.5–89.7	80.2–83.2	— pts	—	No
80%	86.7–89.5	80.4–83.0	— pts	—	No
75%	86.8–89.3	80.5–82.9	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.6–89.7	78.7–82.9	— pts	—	Yes
90%	85.9–89.4	79.0–82.5	— pts	—	Yes
85%	86.1–89.2	79.2–82.3	— pts	—	No
80%	86.3–89.0	79.4–82.1	— pts	—	No
75%	86.4–88.9	79.5–82.0	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.6–89.8	79.7–83.5	— pts	—	Yes
90%	85.9–89.5	80.0–83.2	— pts	—	Yes
85%	86.1–89.2	80.2–83.0	— pts	—	No
80%	86.3–89.1	80.3–82.9	— pts	—	No
75%	86.4–88.9	80.5–82.7	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	86.8–90.1	80.3–83.2	— pts	—	No
90%	86.9–89.7	80.4–83.0	— pts	—	No
85%	87.0–89.4	80.4–83.0	— pts	—	No
80%	87.0–89.3	80.5–82.8	— pts	—	No
75%	87.1–89.2	80.6–82.7	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	86.4–89.8	79.6–83.6	— pts	—	No
90%	86.5–89.2	79.9–83.3	— pts	—	No
85%	86.5–89.0	80.2–83.1	— pts	—	No
80%	86.5–88.9	80.3–82.9	— pts	—	No
75%	86.7–88.8	80.4–82.8	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.7–90.4	79.2–84.1	— pts	—	Yes
90%	86.1–90.0	79.6–83.7	— pts	—	No
85%	86.3–89.8	79.8–83.4	— pts	—	No
80%	86.5–89.6	80.0–83.2	— pts	—	No
75%	86.7–89.4	80.2–83.1	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	86.3–90.2	79.6–83.2	— pts	—	No
90%	86.5–89.6	80.0–82.9	— pts	—	No
85%	86.8–89.2	80.2–82.7	— pts	—	No
80%	86.9–89.0	80.3–82.6	— pts	—	No
75%	87.0–89.0	80.4–82.5	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.5–90.2	79.7–83.6	— pts	—	Yes
90%	85.9–89.8	80.0–83.3	— pts	—	Yes
85%	86.1–89.6	80.2–83.1	— pts	—	No
80%	86.3–89.4	80.4–82.9	— pts	—	No
75%	86.5–89.2	80.5–82.8	— pts	—	No

Level	MIN range	CON range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	85.6–91.2	79.4–83.8	— pts	—	Yes
90%	86.1–90.8	79.8–83.4	— pts	—	No
85%	86.4–90.5	80.0–83.2	— pts	—	No
80%	86.6–90.3	80.2–83.0	— pts	—	No
75%	86.8–90.1	80.3–82.9	— pts	—	No

Minnesota Lynx at Connecticut Sun