Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 13, 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

Phoenix Mercury at Minnesota Lynx

PHX 100 – MIN 104

July 13, 2026 · Final

Ice

Best model for this game

Ice
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 PHX at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

PHX — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Vince Chambers
PHX 81.5–86.4 MIN 85.7–90.5 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.9–86.0 MIN 86.1–90.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.2–85.8 MIN 86.3–89.9 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.4–85.6 MIN 86.5–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.4 MIN 86.7–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-26.39
p-value
4.20e-66

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
PHX 81.7–87.0 MIN 86.6–91.2 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–86.5 MIN 86.9–90.4 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) — by 3.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.4–86.3 MIN 87.0–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.6–86.0 MIN 87.0–89.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.8–85.9 MIN 87.0–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-23.20
p-value
7.61e-58

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
PHX 81.7–86.5 MIN 86.1–90.0 Overlap 0.45 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

PHX 82.1–86.1 MIN 86.4–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.9 MIN 86.6–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

PHX 82.5–85.7 MIN 86.8–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

PHX 82.7–85.5 MIN 86.9–89.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-27.99
p-value
1.51e-68

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
PHX 81.7–86.3 MIN 86.1–90.1 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–85.9 MIN 86.4–89.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.7 MIN 86.7–89.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.5 MIN 86.8–89.4 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.7–85.3 MIN 86.9–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-30.06
p-value
2.68e-74

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
PHX 80.9–85.0 MIN 85.5–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.0) — by 4.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.3–84.7 MIN 85.8–89.4 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.0) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.5–84.5 MIN 86.1–89.1 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.0) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.6–84.3 MIN 86.2–89.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.0) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.8–84.2 MIN 86.4–88.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.0) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-34.79
p-value
2.67e-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.

Ice
PHX 81.7–86.2 MIN 86.0–89.8 Overlap 0.15 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.0–85.8 MIN 86.3–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.6 MIN 86.5–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.4 MIN 86.7–89.1 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

PHX 82.6–85.2 MIN 86.8–89.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

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

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-30.06
p-value
5.64e-74

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
PHX 82.0–86.2 MIN 86.0–89.9 Overlap 0.17 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.3–85.8 MIN 86.3–89.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.6–85.6 MIN 86.5–89.4 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.7–85.5 MIN 86.7–89.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.9–85.3 MIN 86.8–89.1 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-30.01
p-value
1.28e-74

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
PHX 81.7–86.4 MIN 86.5–89.9 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.1–86.0 MIN 86.6–89.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.8 MIN 86.7–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.6 MIN 86.9–89.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.7–85.4 MIN 87.0–89.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-28.28
p-value
2.99e-70

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
PHX 81.9–86.2 MIN 85.9–90.0 Overlap 0.22 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.2–85.8 MIN 86.3–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.4–85.6 MIN 86.5–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.6–85.4 MIN 86.7–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.7–85.3 MIN 86.8–89.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — 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
-29.63
p-value
7.67e-74

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
PHX 81.7–86.2 MIN 85.8–90.1 Overlap 0.34 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.0–85.8 MIN 86.2–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.6 MIN 86.4–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.4 MIN 86.6–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.6–85.3 MIN 86.7–89.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-28.87
p-value
4.98e-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.

Lexi
PHX 81.5–86.3 MIN 86.5–90.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.9–85.9 MIN 86.6–89.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.2–85.7 MIN 86.8–89.7 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.4–85.5 MIN 86.9–89.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.5–85.3 MIN 87.0–89.3 No overlap Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-28.54
p-value
2.64e-71

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
PHX 82.7–87.4 MIN 85.3–90.0 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 85.1) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 83.1–87.0 MIN 85.7–89.6 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 85.1) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 83.4–86.8 MIN 85.9–89.4 Overlap 0.85 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 85.1) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 83.5–86.6 MIN 86.1–89.2 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 85.1) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 83.7–86.4 MIN 86.3–89.0 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 85.1) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-17.29
p-value
3.78e-41

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 — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.4 85.7–90.5 0.77 pts — No
90% 81.9–86.0 86.1–90.2 — pts — No
85% 82.2–85.8 86.3–89.9 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.6 86.5–89.7 — pts — No
75% 82.5–85.4 86.7–89.5 — pts — No
Reg — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–87.0 86.6–91.2 0.33 pts — No
90% 82.1–86.5 86.9–90.4 — pts — No
85% 82.4–86.3 87.0–89.7 — pts — No
80% 82.6–86.0 87.0–89.6 — pts — No
75% 82.8–85.9 87.0–89.5 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.5 86.1–90.0 0.45 pts — No
90% 82.1–86.1 86.4–89.7 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.9 86.6–89.5 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.7 86.8–89.3 — pts — No
75% 82.7–85.5 86.9–89.2 — pts — No
Kevin — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.3 86.1–90.1 0.16 pts — No
90% 82.1–85.9 86.4–89.8 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.7 86.7–89.6 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.5 86.8–89.4 — pts — No
75% 82.7–85.3 86.9–89.3 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.9–85.0 85.5–89.7 — pts — No
90% 81.3–84.7 85.8–89.4 — pts — No
85% 81.5–84.5 86.1–89.1 — pts — No
80% 81.6–84.3 86.2–89.0 — pts — No
75% 81.8–84.2 86.4–88.8 — pts — No
Ice — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.2 86.0–89.8 0.15 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.8 86.3–89.5 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.6 86.5–89.3 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.4 86.7–89.1 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.2 86.8–89.0 — pts — No
Jamal — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–86.2 86.0–89.9 0.17 pts — No
90% 82.3–85.8 86.3–89.6 — pts — No
85% 82.6–85.6 86.5–89.4 — pts — No
80% 82.7–85.5 86.7–89.2 — pts — No
75% 82.9–85.3 86.8–89.1 — pts — No
Jordan — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.4 86.5–89.9 — pts — No
90% 82.1–86.0 86.6–89.8 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.8 86.7–89.3 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.6 86.9–89.2 — pts — No
75% 82.7–85.4 87.0–89.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.9–86.2 85.9–90.0 0.22 pts — No
90% 82.2–85.8 86.3–89.7 — pts — No
85% 82.4–85.6 86.5–89.5 — pts — No
80% 82.6–85.4 86.7–89.3 — pts — No
75% 82.7–85.3 86.8–89.2 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.2 85.8–90.1 0.34 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.8 86.2–89.7 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.6 86.4–89.5 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.4 86.6–89.3 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.3 86.7–89.2 — pts — No
Lexi — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.3 86.5–90.2 — pts — No
90% 81.9–85.9 86.6–89.8 — pts — No
85% 82.2–85.7 86.8–89.7 — pts — No
80% 82.4–85.5 86.9–89.5 — pts — No
75% 82.5–85.3 87.0–89.3 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — PHX at MIN — Actual: PHX 100, MIN 104
Level PHX range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.7–87.4 85.3–90.0 2.09 pts — No
90% 83.1–87.0 85.7–89.6 1.34 pts — No
85% 83.4–86.8 85.9–89.4 0.85 pts — No
80% 83.5–86.6 86.1–89.2 0.48 pts — No
75% 83.7–86.4 86.3–89.0 0.16 pts — No