Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 17, 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

Los Angeles Sparks at Chicago Sky

LAS 82 – CHI 96

July 17, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
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 LAS at CHI

All 12 models’ predicted scores

LAS — one dot per model CHI — one dot per model Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Vince Chambers
LAS 84.2–87.6 CHI 84.8–89.1 Overlap 2.8 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–87.3 CHI 85.2–88.7 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–87.0 CHI 85.4–88.5 Overlap 1.61 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.7–86.9 CHI 85.6–88.3 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–86.9 CHI 85.7–88.2 Overlap 1.17 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-9.76
p-value
1.50e-18

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
LAS 82.9–88.7 CHI 84.4–89.8 Overlap 4.26 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.4–88.2 CHI 84.9–89.4 Overlap 3.36 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.7–87.9 CHI 85.2–89.1 Overlap 2.78 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 83.9–87.7 CHI 85.4–88.9 Overlap 2.33 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.1–87.5 CHI 85.6–88.7 Overlap 1.95 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-7.47
p-value
2.66e-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.

Dr. Wallace
LAS 83.7–88.2 CHI 85.3–89.0 Overlap 2.89 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.0–87.8 CHI 85.7–88.9 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.3–87.6 CHI 85.7–88.5 Overlap 1.84 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.5–87.4 CHI 85.9–88.4 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–87.2 CHI 86.0–88.3 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-7.03
p-value
3.45e-11

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
LAS 83.2–88.2 CHI 84.6–89.5 Overlap 3.62 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.6–87.8 CHI 85.2–88.4 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 83.9–87.5 CHI 85.5–88.2 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.1–87.3 CHI 85.7–88.1 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.2–87.2 CHI 86.0–88.0 Overlap 1.12 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-8.47
p-value
6.21e-15

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
LAS 83.7–88.0 CHI 83.5–88.6 Overlap 4.36 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.0–87.7 CHI 83.9–88.2 Overlap 3.66 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.3–87.5 CHI 84.2–87.9 Overlap 3.2 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.4–87.3 CHI 84.4–87.7 Overlap 2.85 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–87.1 CHI 84.6–87.5 Overlap 2.56 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-1.19
p-value
2.37e-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.

Ice
LAS 83.8–87.5 CHI 83.9–89.6 Overlap 3.61 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.3–87.3 CHI 84.7–89.0 Overlap 2.66 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.5–87.3 CHI 85.4–88.3 Overlap 1.85 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–87.1 CHI 85.6–88.1 Overlap 1.53 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.7–87.0 CHI 85.7–88.0 Overlap 1.28 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-7.31
p-value
7.98e-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.

Jamal
LAS 83.5–87.9 CHI 84.1–88.9 Overlap 3.85 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.8–87.5 CHI 84.8–88.5 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.1–87.3 CHI 85.2–88.3 Overlap 2.08 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.2–87.1 CHI 85.7–88.2 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–87.0 CHI 85.7–87.9 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.7) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-7.23
p-value
1.11e-11

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
LAS 84.3–88.0 CHI 84.5–89.5 Overlap 3.5 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.4–87.8 CHI 85.7–88.6 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–87.7 CHI 85.9–88.2 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–87.6 CHI 86.0–88.0 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–87.1 CHI 86.1–87.9 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-6.87
p-value
8.53e-11

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
LAS 83.4–88.2 CHI 83.9–89.6 Overlap 4.31 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.8–87.9 CHI 84.4–89.2 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.0–87.6 CHI 84.7–88.9 Overlap 2.91 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.2–87.4 CHI 84.9–88.6 Overlap 2.48 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–87.2 CHI 85.1–88.5 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-5.79
p-value
2.93e-08

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
LAS 83.4–88.3 CHI 83.7–89.3 Overlap 4.61 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.8–87.9 CHI 84.9–88.8 Overlap 3.04 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.1–87.7 CHI 85.3–88.7 Overlap 2.39 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.3–87.5 CHI 85.3–88.4 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–87.3 CHI 85.5–88.2 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-6.48
p-value
7.82e-10

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
LAS 83.7–87.9 CHI 84.4–89.4 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.5–87.7 CHI 84.8–89.0 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.7–87.4 CHI 85.0–88.7 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–87.1 CHI 85.2–88.5 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.9–86.9 CHI 85.4–88.3 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-6.78
p-value
1.46e-10

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
LAS 83.4–88.5 CHI 85.2–90.2 Overlap 3.21 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.7) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.8–88.0 CHI 85.6–89.8 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.7) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.0–87.8 CHI 85.9–89.5 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.7) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.2–87.6 CHI 86.1–89.3 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.7) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–87.4 CHI 86.3–89.2 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.7) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 85.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-11.24
p-value
6.91e-23

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 — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–87.6 84.8–89.1 2.8 pts — No
90% 84.4–87.3 85.2–88.7 2.14 pts — No
85% 84.6–87.0 85.4–88.5 1.61 pts — No
80% 84.7–86.9 85.6–88.3 1.34 pts — No
75% 84.8–86.9 85.7–88.2 1.17 pts — No
Reg — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.9–88.7 84.4–89.8 4.26 pts — No
90% 83.4–88.2 84.9–89.4 3.36 pts — No
85% 83.7–87.9 85.2–89.1 2.78 pts — No
80% 83.9–87.7 85.4–88.9 2.33 pts — No
75% 84.1–87.5 85.6–88.7 1.95 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–88.2 85.3–89.0 2.89 pts — No
90% 84.0–87.8 85.7–88.9 2.11 pts — No
85% 84.3–87.6 85.7–88.5 1.84 pts — No
80% 84.5–87.4 85.9–88.4 1.46 pts — No
75% 84.6–87.2 86.0–88.3 1.26 pts — No
Kevin — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–88.2 84.6–89.5 3.62 pts — No
90% 83.6–87.8 85.2–88.4 2.55 pts — No
85% 83.9–87.5 85.5–88.2 2.01 pts — No
80% 84.1–87.3 85.7–88.1 1.59 pts — No
75% 84.2–87.2 86.0–88.0 1.12 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–88.0 83.5–88.6 4.36 pts — No
90% 84.0–87.7 83.9–88.2 3.66 pts — No
85% 84.3–87.5 84.2–87.9 3.2 pts — No
80% 84.4–87.3 84.4–87.7 2.85 pts — No
75% 84.6–87.1 84.6–87.5 2.56 pts — No
Ice — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.8–87.5 83.9–89.6 3.61 pts — No
90% 84.3–87.3 84.7–89.0 2.66 pts — No
85% 84.5–87.3 85.4–88.3 1.85 pts — No
80% 84.6–87.1 85.6–88.1 1.53 pts — No
75% 84.7–87.0 85.7–88.0 1.28 pts — No
Jamal — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–87.9 84.1–88.9 3.85 pts — No
90% 83.8–87.5 84.8–88.5 2.74 pts — No
85% 84.1–87.3 85.2–88.3 2.08 pts — No
80% 84.2–87.1 85.7–88.2 1.48 pts — No
75% 84.4–87.0 85.7–87.9 1.26 pts — No
Jordan — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.3–88.0 84.5–89.5 3.5 pts — No
90% 84.4–87.8 85.7–88.6 2.09 pts — No
85% 84.6–87.7 85.9–88.2 1.8 pts — No
80% 84.8–87.6 86.0–88.0 1.62 pts — No
75% 84.8–87.1 86.1–87.9 1.05 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.4–88.2 83.9–89.6 4.31 pts — No
90% 83.8–87.9 84.4–89.2 3.46 pts — No
85% 84.0–87.6 84.7–88.9 2.91 pts — No
80% 84.2–87.4 84.9–88.6 2.48 pts — No
75% 84.4–87.2 85.1–88.5 2.13 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.4–88.3 83.7–89.3 4.61 pts — No
90% 83.8–87.9 84.9–88.8 3.04 pts — No
85% 84.1–87.7 85.3–88.7 2.39 pts — No
80% 84.3–87.5 85.3–88.4 2.15 pts — No
75% 84.4–87.3 85.5–88.2 1.81 pts — No
Lexi — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–87.9 84.4–89.4 3.49 pts — No
90% 84.5–87.7 84.8–89.0 2.88 pts — No
85% 84.7–87.4 85.0–88.7 2.34 pts — No
80% 84.8–87.1 85.2–88.5 1.81 pts — No
75% 84.9–86.9 85.4–88.3 1.46 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — LAS at CHI — Actual: LAS 82, CHI 96
Level LAS range CHI range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.4–88.5 85.2–90.2 3.21 pts — No
90% 83.8–88.0 85.6–89.8 2.41 pts — No
85% 84.0–87.8 85.9–89.5 1.88 pts — No
80% 84.2–87.6 86.1–89.3 1.48 pts — No
75% 84.4–87.4 86.3–89.2 1.14 pts — No