Clay's Almanac

Vince Chambers

CON 80.4–84.2 PHX 82.8–85.8 Overlap 1.36 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.9 PHX 83.0–85.8 Overlap 0.81 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.9–83.7 PHX 83.1–85.3 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 81.0–83.5 PHX 83.2–85.1 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 81.1–83.4 PHX 83.3–84.9 Overlap 0.11 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic: -15.24
p-value: 5.86e-35

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

CON 79.7–84.8 PHX 82.1–87.5 Overlap 2.71 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.1–84.4 PHX 82.4–86.1 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.3–84.1 PHX 82.6–85.9 Overlap 1.55 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.5–83.9 PHX 82.8–85.7 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.7 PHX 83.1–85.6 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Reg (#2)
t-statistic: -11.89
p-value: 1.10e-24

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

CON 80.2–83.9 PHX 81.9–86.4 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.5–83.6 PHX 82.3–86.0 Overlap 1.35 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.4 PHX 82.5–85.8 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.9–83.3 PHX 82.7–85.6 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 81.0–83.2 PHX 82.8–85.4 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic: -15.79
p-value: 2.61e-36

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

CON 79.9–84.2 PHX 81.6–86.8 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.2–83.8 PHX 82.0–86.3 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.6 PHX 82.3–86.1 Overlap 1.33 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.6–83.4 PHX 82.5–85.9 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.8–83.3 PHX 82.7–85.7 Overlap 0.63 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Kevin (#4)
t-statistic: -14.14
p-value: 2.25e-31

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

CON 78.9–83.7 PHX 80.9–85.4 Overlap 2.83 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 79.3–83.3 PHX 81.2–85.0 Overlap 2.08 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 79.5–83.1 PHX 81.5–84.8 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 79.7–82.9 PHX 81.7–84.6 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 79.9–82.7 PHX 81.8–84.4 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic: -12.28
p-value: 5.51e-26

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

CON 80.0–84.1 PHX 81.5–86.6 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.3–83.7 PHX 81.9–86.2 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.5–83.5 PHX 82.2–85.9 Overlap 1.33 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.4 PHX 82.4–85.7 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.8–83.2 PHX 82.6–85.6 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Ice (#6)
t-statistic: -13.89
p-value: 1.47e-30

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

CON 80.0–84.2 PHX 81.9–86.4 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.8 PHX 82.3–86.1 Overlap 1.57 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.6–83.6 PHX 82.5–85.8 Overlap 1.11 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.4 PHX 82.7–85.6 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.9–83.3 PHX 82.8–85.5 Overlap 0.48 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Jamal (#7)
t-statistic: -14.92
p-value: 5.95e-34

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

CON 79.8–84.2 PHX 82.5–86.4 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.1–83.8 PHX 82.8–85.8 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.6 PHX 83.1–85.7 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.5–83.4 PHX 83.2–85.6 Overlap 0.22 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.7–83.3 PHX 83.3–85.5 No overlap Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 2.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Jordan (#8)
t-statistic: -15.86
p-value: 7.57e-37

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

CON 80.0–84.1 PHX 81.7–86.5 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.8 PHX 82.1–86.1 Overlap 1.64 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.6–83.5 PHX 82.4–85.9 Overlap 1.18 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.4 PHX 82.6–85.7 Overlap 0.82 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.9–83.2 PHX 82.7–85.5 Overlap 0.53 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic: -14.56
p-value: 1.09e-32

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

CON 79.9–84.2 PHX 81.9–86.7 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.3–83.9 PHX 82.3–86.3 Overlap 1.61 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.5–83.7 PHX 82.5–86.0 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.7–83.5 PHX 82.7–85.8 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.8–83.3 PHX 82.9–85.7 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.1) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic: -15.18
p-value: 1.02e-34

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

CON 80.1–83.8 PHX 82.3–86.8 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.5 PHX 82.6–86.5 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.6–83.3 PHX 82.7–85.5 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.7–83.2 PHX 82.8–85.3 Overlap 0.39 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.8–83.1 PHX 83.0–85.2 Overlap 0.09 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Lexi (#11)
t-statistic: -15.45
p-value: 6.04e-35

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

CON 80.1–83.8 PHX 82.0–87.4 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.4–83.5 PHX 82.4–86.9 Overlap 1.1 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 80.6–83.3 PHX 82.7–86.6 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.7–83.2 PHX 82.9–86.4 Overlap 0.25 pts Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

CON 80.8–83.1 PHX 83.1–86.3 No overlap Actual: CON 96, PHX 83

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 2.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic: -18.49
p-value: 5.90e-43

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	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.4–84.2	82.8–85.8	1.36 pts	—	No
90%	80.7–83.9	83.0–85.8	0.81 pts	—	No
85%	80.9–83.7	83.1–85.3	0.56 pts	—	No
80%	81.0–83.5	83.2–85.1	0.33 pts	—	No
75%	81.1–83.4	83.3–84.9	0.11 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	79.7–84.8	82.1–87.5	2.71 pts	—	No
90%	80.1–84.4	82.4–86.1	2.01 pts	—	No
85%	80.3–84.1	82.6–85.9	1.55 pts	—	No
80%	80.5–83.9	82.8–85.7	1.06 pts	—	No
75%	80.7–83.7	83.1–85.6	0.65 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.2–83.9	81.9–86.4	2.01 pts	—	No
90%	80.5–83.6	82.3–86.0	1.35 pts	—	No
85%	80.7–83.4	82.5–85.8	0.93 pts	—	No
80%	80.9–83.3	82.7–85.6	0.6 pts	—	No
75%	81.0–83.2	82.8–85.4	0.33 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	79.9–84.2	81.6–86.8	2.59 pts	—	No
90%	80.2–83.8	82.0–86.3	1.83 pts	—	No
85%	80.4–83.6	82.3–86.1	1.33 pts	—	No
80%	80.6–83.4	82.5–85.9	0.95 pts	—	No
75%	80.8–83.3	82.7–85.7	0.63 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	78.9–83.7	80.9–85.4	2.83 pts	—	No
90%	79.3–83.3	81.2–85.0	2.08 pts	—	No
85%	79.5–83.1	81.5–84.8	1.59 pts	—	No
80%	79.7–82.9	81.7–84.6	1.22 pts	—	No
75%	79.9–82.7	81.8–84.4	0.91 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.0–84.1	81.5–86.6	2.55 pts	—	No
90%	80.3–83.7	81.9–86.2	1.81 pts	—	No
85%	80.5–83.5	82.2–85.9	1.33 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.4	82.4–85.7	0.96 pts	—	No
75%	80.8–83.2	82.6–85.6	0.65 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.0–84.2	81.9–86.4	2.26 pts	—	No
90%	80.4–83.8	82.3–86.1	1.57 pts	—	No
85%	80.6–83.6	82.5–85.8	1.11 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.4	82.7–85.6	0.77 pts	—	No
75%	80.9–83.3	82.8–85.5	0.48 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	79.8–84.2	82.5–86.4	1.69 pts	—	No
90%	80.1–83.8	82.8–85.8	1.06 pts	—	No
85%	80.4–83.6	83.1–85.7	0.51 pts	—	No
80%	80.5–83.4	83.2–85.6	0.22 pts	—	No
75%	80.7–83.3	83.3–85.5	— pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.0–84.1	81.7–86.5	2.34 pts	—	No
90%	80.4–83.8	82.1–86.1	1.64 pts	—	No
85%	80.6–83.5	82.4–85.9	1.18 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.4	82.6–85.7	0.82 pts	—	No
75%	80.9–83.2	82.7–85.5	0.53 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	79.9–84.2	81.9–86.7	2.34 pts	—	No
90%	80.3–83.9	82.3–86.3	1.61 pts	—	No
85%	80.5–83.7	82.5–86.0	1.13 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.5	82.7–85.8	0.77 pts	—	No
75%	80.8–83.3	82.9–85.7	0.46 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.1–83.8	82.3–86.8	1.54 pts	—	No
90%	80.4–83.5	82.6–86.5	0.94 pts	—	No
85%	80.6–83.3	82.7–85.5	0.62 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.2	82.8–85.3	0.39 pts	—	No
75%	80.8–83.1	83.0–85.2	0.09 pts	—	No

Level	CON range	PHX range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.1–83.8	82.0–87.4	1.83 pts	—	No
90%	80.4–83.5	82.4–86.9	1.1 pts	—	No
85%	80.6–83.3	82.7–86.6	0.62 pts	—	No
80%	80.7–83.2	82.9–86.4	0.25 pts	—	No
75%	80.8–83.1	83.1–86.3	— pts	—	No

Connecticut Sun at Phoenix Mercury