Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 14, 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

Portland Fire at Connecticut Sun

POR 87 – CON 90

July 14, 2026 · Final

Reg

Best model for this game

Reg
All models: 6-6
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 POR at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

POR — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Vince Chambers
POR 80.4–84.2 CON 80.1–84.4 Overlap 3.82 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.7–83.9 CON 80.5–84.1 Overlap 3.21 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.9–83.7 CON 80.7–83.9 Overlap 2.81 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.5 CON 80.9–83.7 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.2–83.4 CON 81.0–83.5 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-0.04
p-value
9.68e-01

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
POR 80.7–83.7 CON 80.4–84.8 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.6 CON 80.7–84.4 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.1–83.5 CON 80.9–84.2 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.2–83.5 CON 81.1–84.0 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.3–83.3 CON 81.3–83.9 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-1.68
p-value
9.47e-02

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
POR 79.9–84.1 CON 80.0–84.2 Overlap 4.05 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.3–83.7 CON 80.3–83.9 Overlap 3.38 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.5–83.5 CON 80.6–83.6 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.6–83.3 CON 80.7–83.5 Overlap 2.61 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.8–83.2 CON 80.9–83.3 Overlap 2.33 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-0.78
p-value
4.38e-01

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
POR 80.3–84.0 CON 80.1–84.0 Overlap 3.74 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.6–83.7 CON 80.4–83.7 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.8–83.5 CON 80.6–83.5 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.9–83.4 CON 80.7–83.3 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.2 CON 80.9–83.2 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
0.78
p-value
4.33e-01

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
POR 80.1–84.1 CON 79.2–83.2 Overlap 3.07 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.5–83.8 CON 79.5–82.9 Overlap 2.43 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.7–83.6 CON 79.7–82.7 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.8–83.4 CON 79.9–82.5 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.3 CON 80.0–82.4 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
7.33
p-value
5.91e-12

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
POR 80.4–83.7 CON 80.1–84.0 Overlap 3.26 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.7–83.4 CON 80.4–83.7 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.8–83.2 CON 80.6–83.5 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.1 CON 80.8–83.3 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.1–83.0 CON 80.9–83.2 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-0.13
p-value
8.99e-01

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
POR 80.3–83.9 CON 80.2–83.9 Overlap 3.61 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.6–83.6 CON 80.5–83.6 Overlap 3.03 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.8–83.4 CON 80.7–83.4 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.9–83.3 CON 80.8–83.3 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–83.2 CON 80.9–83.1 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
0.53
p-value
5.95e-01

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
POR 79.9–84.1 CON 79.9–84.0 Overlap 4.06 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.3–83.7 CON 80.3–83.7 Overlap 3.4 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.5–83.5 CON 80.5–83.5 Overlap 2.98 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.7–83.4 CON 80.6–83.3 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.8–83.2 CON 80.8–83.2 Overlap 2.37 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
0.23
p-value
8.16e-01

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
POR 80.1–83.8 CON 79.8–84.2 Overlap 3.76 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.4–83.5 CON 80.1–83.8 Overlap 3.16 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.6–83.3 CON 80.4–83.6 Overlap 2.76 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.7–83.2 CON 80.6–83.4 Overlap 2.46 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.9–83.1 CON 80.7–83.3 Overlap 2.21 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-0.23
p-value
8.16e-01

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
POR 80.4–83.6 CON 80.4–84.0 Overlap 3.19 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.4–83.3 CON 80.8–83.8 Overlap 2.48 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.7–83.1 CON 80.8–83.6 Overlap 2.3 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.9–83.1 CON 80.9–83.4 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.0–82.9 CON 81.0–83.4 Overlap 1.84 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-1.42
p-value
1.56e-01

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
POR 80.3–84.1 CON 80.1–83.8 Overlap 3.57 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 80.6–83.8 CON 80.4–83.5 Overlap 2.96 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.8–83.6 CON 80.6–83.3 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 80.9–83.4 CON 80.8–83.2 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.1–83.3 CON 80.9–83.1 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 82.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
1.71
p-value
8.94e-02

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
POR 80.9–85.5 CON 79.7–84.2 Overlap 3.2 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

POR 81.3–85.1 CON 80.0–83.8 Overlap 2.48 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.6–84.9 CON 80.3–83.6 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.7–84.7 CON 80.4–83.4 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.9–84.5 CON 80.6–83.2 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: POR 87, CON 90

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 83.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
9.08
p-value
1.22e-16

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 — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–84.2 80.1–84.4 3.82 pts — No
90% 80.7–83.9 80.5–84.1 3.21 pts — No
85% 80.9–83.7 80.7–83.9 2.81 pts — No
80% 81.0–83.5 80.9–83.7 2.5 pts — No
75% 81.2–83.4 81.0–83.5 2.24 pts — No
Reg — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–83.7 80.4–84.8 2.95 pts — No
90% 81.0–83.6 80.7–84.4 2.57 pts — No
85% 81.1–83.5 80.9–84.2 2.42 pts — No
80% 81.2–83.5 81.1–84.0 2.27 pts — No
75% 81.3–83.3 81.3–83.9 2.01 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.9–84.1 80.0–84.2 4.05 pts — No
90% 80.3–83.7 80.3–83.9 3.38 pts — No
85% 80.5–83.5 80.6–83.6 2.95 pts — No
80% 80.6–83.3 80.7–83.5 2.61 pts — No
75% 80.8–83.2 80.9–83.3 2.33 pts — No
Kevin — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.0 80.1–84.0 3.74 pts — No
90% 80.6–83.7 80.4–83.7 3.13 pts — No
85% 80.8–83.5 80.6–83.5 2.73 pts — No
80% 80.9–83.4 80.7–83.3 2.42 pts — No
75% 81.0–83.2 80.9–83.2 2.16 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.1–84.1 79.2–83.2 3.07 pts — No
90% 80.5–83.8 79.5–82.9 2.43 pts — No
85% 80.7–83.6 79.7–82.7 2.01 pts — No
80% 80.8–83.4 79.9–82.5 1.68 pts — No
75% 81.0–83.3 80.0–82.4 1.41 pts — No
Ice — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–83.7 80.1–84.0 3.26 pts — No
90% 80.7–83.4 80.4–83.7 2.74 pts — No
85% 80.8–83.2 80.6–83.5 2.4 pts — No
80% 81.0–83.1 80.8–83.3 2.13 pts — No
75% 81.1–83.0 80.9–83.2 1.91 pts — No
Jamal — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–83.9 80.2–83.9 3.61 pts — No
90% 80.6–83.6 80.5–83.6 3.03 pts — No
85% 80.8–83.4 80.7–83.4 2.65 pts — No
80% 80.9–83.3 80.8–83.3 2.35 pts — No
75% 81.0–83.2 80.9–83.1 2.1 pts — No
Jordan — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.9–84.1 79.9–84.0 4.06 pts — No
90% 80.3–83.7 80.3–83.7 3.4 pts — No
85% 80.5–83.5 80.5–83.5 2.98 pts — No
80% 80.7–83.4 80.6–83.3 2.65 pts — No
75% 80.8–83.2 80.8–83.2 2.37 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.1–83.8 79.8–84.2 3.76 pts — No
90% 80.4–83.5 80.1–83.8 3.16 pts — No
85% 80.6–83.3 80.4–83.6 2.76 pts — No
80% 80.7–83.2 80.6–83.4 2.46 pts — No
75% 80.9–83.1 80.7–83.3 2.21 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–83.6 80.4–84.0 3.19 pts — No
90% 80.4–83.3 80.8–83.8 2.48 pts — No
85% 80.7–83.1 80.8–83.6 2.3 pts — No
80% 80.9–83.1 80.9–83.4 2.14 pts — No
75% 81.0–82.9 81.0–83.4 1.84 pts — No
Lexi — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–84.1 80.1–83.8 3.57 pts — No
90% 80.6–83.8 80.4–83.5 2.96 pts — No
85% 80.8–83.6 80.6–83.3 2.57 pts — No
80% 80.9–83.4 80.8–83.2 2.26 pts — No
75% 81.1–83.3 80.9–83.1 2.01 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — POR at CON — Actual: POR 87, CON 90
Level POR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.9–85.5 79.7–84.2 3.2 pts — No
90% 81.3–85.1 80.0–83.8 2.48 pts — No
85% 81.6–84.9 80.3–83.6 2.01 pts — No
80% 81.7–84.7 80.4–83.4 1.64 pts — No
75% 81.9–84.5 80.6–83.2 1.34 pts — No