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

Washington Mystics at Toronto Tempo

WAS 79 – TOR 62

July 14, 2026 · Final

Ice

Best model for this game

Ice
All models: 0-12
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 WAS at TOR

All 12 models’ predicted scores

WAS — one dot per model TOR — one dot per model Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Vince Chambers
WAS 81.5–85.7 TOR 84.7–89.0 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.9–85.4 TOR 85.0–88.6 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–85.2 TOR 85.3–88.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–85.0 TOR 85.4–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–84.9 TOR 85.6–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-23.57
p-value
7.70e-59

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
WAS 81.2–86.0 TOR 84.9–89.0 Overlap 1.08 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.6–85.6 TOR 85.2–88.7 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.8–85.4 TOR 85.5–88.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–85.2 TOR 85.6–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–85.0 TOR 85.8–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.6) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-23.62
p-value
2.63e-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
WAS 81.3–85.7 TOR 84.5–88.9 Overlap 1.12 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

WAS 81.7–85.3 TOR 84.9–88.6 Overlap 0.43 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–85.1 TOR 85.1–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–84.9 TOR 85.3–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.8 TOR 85.5–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-23.22
p-value
6.44e-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.

Kevin
WAS 81.5–85.4 TOR 84.8–88.8 Overlap 0.64 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–85.1 TOR 85.1–88.5 Overlap 0.01 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–84.9 TOR 85.3–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.8 TOR 85.5–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–84.6 TOR 85.6–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-26.22
p-value
1.17e-65

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
WAS 81.1–85.5 TOR 84.6–88.6 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.4–85.2 TOR 84.9–88.3 Overlap 0.26 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.7–84.9 TOR 85.1–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.9–84.7 TOR 85.3–87.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–84.6 TOR 85.4–87.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-24.35
p-value
1.32e-60

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
WAS 81.6–85.3 TOR 84.7–88.4 Overlap 0.63 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–85.0 TOR 85.0–88.1 Overlap 0.03 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–84.8 TOR 85.2–87.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.6 TOR 85.3–87.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–84.5 TOR 85.4–87.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-26.05
p-value
3.01e-65

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
WAS 81.3–85.3 TOR 84.7–89.0 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.6–85.0 TOR 85.0–88.4 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.9–84.8 TOR 85.2–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–84.6 TOR 85.4–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–84.5 TOR 85.6–87.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-24.27
p-value
6.53e-60

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
WAS 81.6–85.6 TOR 84.6–88.9 Overlap 0.98 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–85.2 TOR 84.9–88.6 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.1–84.9 TOR 85.1–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.6 TOR 85.3–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.4–84.3 TOR 85.5–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-24.35
p-value
7.65e-61

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
WAS 81.4–85.3 TOR 84.9–88.9 Overlap 0.35 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.7–84.9 TOR 85.2–88.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.9–84.7 TOR 85.4–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–84.6 TOR 85.6–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.5 TOR 85.7–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.3) — by 3.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-28.51
p-value
2.98e-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.

Maya Jefferson
WAS 81.8–84.9 TOR 84.6–88.9 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.9–84.8 TOR 84.9–88.5 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.0–84.7 TOR 85.2–88.3 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–84.6 TOR 85.3–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.2–84.6 TOR 85.5–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-23.48
p-value
1.40e-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.

Lexi
WAS 81.5–85.3 TOR 84.5–88.6 Overlap 0.75 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 81.8–85.0 TOR 84.9–88.3 Overlap 0.11 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 82.0–84.8 TOR 85.1–88.1 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.1–84.6 TOR 85.3–87.9 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 82.3–84.5 TOR 85.4–87.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-25.37
p-value
2.04e-63

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
WAS 80.0–84.7 TOR 84.4–88.5 Overlap 0.25 pts Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

WAS 80.4–84.3 TOR 84.8–88.2 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 80.6–84.1 TOR 85.0–88.0 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 80.8–83.9 TOR 85.2–87.8 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

WAS 81.0–83.7 TOR 85.3–87.7 No overlap Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 86.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-29.47
p-value
9.11e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–85.7 84.7–89.0 1.05 pts — No
90% 81.9–85.4 85.0–88.6 0.37 pts — No
85% 82.1–85.2 85.3–88.4 — pts — No
80% 82.3–85.0 85.4–88.2 — pts — No
75% 82.4–84.9 85.6–88.1 — pts — No
Reg — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–86.0 84.9–89.0 1.08 pts — No
90% 81.6–85.6 85.2–88.7 0.37 pts — No
85% 81.8–85.4 85.5–88.4 — pts — No
80% 82.0–85.2 85.6–88.3 — pts — No
75% 82.2–85.0 85.8–88.1 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.7 84.5–88.9 1.12 pts — No
90% 81.7–85.3 84.9–88.6 0.43 pts — No
85% 81.9–85.1 85.1–88.3 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.9 85.3–88.2 — pts — No
75% 82.2–84.8 85.5–88.0 — pts — No
Kevin — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–85.4 84.8–88.8 0.64 pts — No
90% 81.9–85.1 85.1–88.5 0.01 pts — No
85% 82.1–84.9 85.3–88.3 — pts — No
80% 82.2–84.8 85.5–88.1 — pts — No
75% 82.4–84.6 85.6–88.0 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–85.5 84.6–88.6 0.93 pts — No
90% 81.4–85.2 84.9–88.3 0.26 pts — No
85% 81.7–84.9 85.1–88.0 — pts — No
80% 81.9–84.7 85.3–87.9 — pts — No
75% 82.0–84.6 85.4–87.7 — pts — No
Ice — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–85.3 84.7–88.4 0.63 pts — No
90% 81.9–85.0 85.0–88.1 0.03 pts — No
85% 82.0–84.8 85.2–87.9 — pts — No
80% 82.2–84.6 85.3–87.8 — pts — No
75% 82.3–84.5 85.4–87.7 — pts — No
Jamal — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.3 84.7–89.0 0.56 pts — No
90% 81.6–85.0 85.0–88.4 — pts — No
85% 81.9–84.8 85.2–88.2 — pts — No
80% 82.0–84.6 85.4–88.1 — pts — No
75% 82.1–84.5 85.6–87.8 — pts — No
Jordan — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–85.6 84.6–88.9 0.98 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.2 84.9–88.6 0.3 pts — No
85% 82.1–84.9 85.1–88.3 — pts — No
80% 82.2–84.6 85.3–88.2 — pts — No
75% 82.4–84.3 85.5–88.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–85.3 84.9–88.9 0.35 pts — No
90% 81.7–84.9 85.2–88.5 — pts — No
85% 81.9–84.7 85.4–88.3 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.6 85.6–88.2 — pts — No
75% 82.2–84.5 85.7–88.0 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.8–84.9 84.6–88.9 0.29 pts — No
90% 81.9–84.8 84.9–88.5 — pts — No
85% 82.0–84.7 85.2–88.3 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.6 85.3–88.1 — pts — No
75% 82.2–84.6 85.5–88.0 — pts — No
Lexi — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–85.3 84.5–88.6 0.75 pts — No
90% 81.8–85.0 84.9–88.3 0.11 pts — No
85% 82.0–84.8 85.1–88.1 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.6 85.3–87.9 — pts — No
75% 82.3–84.5 85.4–87.8 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — WAS at TOR — Actual: WAS 79, TOR 62
Level WAS range TOR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–84.7 84.4–88.5 0.25 pts — No
90% 80.4–84.3 84.8–88.2 — pts — No
85% 80.6–84.1 85.0–88.0 — pts — No
80% 80.8–83.9 85.2–87.8 — pts — No
75% 81.0–83.7 85.3–87.7 — pts — No