Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 18, 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 Minnesota Lynx

POR 93 – MIN 101

July 18, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
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 POR at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

POR — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Vince Chambers
POR 82.3–85.3 MIN 86.0–89.9 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.8) — by 3.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–85.3 MIN 86.2–89.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.8) — by 3.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.6–84.8 MIN 86.5–89.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.8) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.9–84.6 MIN 86.6–88.9 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.8) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 83.0–84.5 MIN 86.8–88.7 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.8) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-30.71
p-value
9.43e-74

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Reg
POR 82.0–85.9 MIN 86.4–90.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.3–85.4 MIN 86.5–89.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–85.2 MIN 86.6–89.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.5–85.1 MIN 86.7–89.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.6–85.0 MIN 86.8–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.9) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-26.44
p-value
3.15e-66

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Dr. Wallace
POR 81.3–85.7 MIN 86.3–89.8 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.3 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.6–85.3 MIN 86.4–89.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.9–85.1 MIN 86.4–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.1–84.9 MIN 86.5–89.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.2–84.8 MIN 86.7–89.0 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-30.10
p-value
5.46e-75

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 81.2–85.2 MIN 86.3–90.7 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.0–85.0 MIN 86.5–90.0 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.2–84.9 MIN 86.8–89.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–84.8 MIN 86.8–89.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.6–84.7 MIN 86.9–89.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-29.47
p-value
2.50e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
POR 80.5–84.9 MIN 85.4–90.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.7) — by 5.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 80.9–84.5 MIN 85.8–89.8 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.7) — by 5.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.1–84.3 MIN 86.1–89.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.7) — by 5.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.3–84.1 MIN 86.2–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.7) — by 5.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.4–84.0 MIN 86.4–89.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 82.7) — by 5.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-35.05
p-value
1.66e-85

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Ice
POR 81.6–86.5 MIN 85.3–90.5 Overlap 1.21 pts Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 82.0–85.6 MIN 85.7–90.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.3–85.1 MIN 86.0–89.8 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–84.9 MIN 86.2–89.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–84.8 MIN 86.3–89.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-25.84
p-value
1.00e-64

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 81.0–86.1 MIN 85.6–90.1 Overlap 0.5 pts Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

POR 81.4–85.7 MIN 86.0–89.7 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.7–85.4 MIN 86.2–89.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.9–85.2 MIN 86.4–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.1–85.1 MIN 86.5–89.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.6) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-27.98
p-value
2.49e-69

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 80.9–85.2 MIN 85.7–90.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.2–85.1 MIN 86.0–89.9 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.5–84.8 MIN 86.3–89.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.2–84.5 MIN 86.5–89.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–84.4 MIN 86.6–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-30.31
p-value
1.76e-75

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 81.2–85.0 MIN 86.3–89.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.6–84.7 MIN 86.5–89.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.0–84.6 MIN 86.6–89.0 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.1–84.5 MIN 86.7–88.8 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.2–84.4 MIN 86.7–88.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-31.05
p-value
7.02e-75

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 81.1–85.8 MIN 86.3–91.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.5–85.5 MIN 86.5–89.6 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.8–85.2 MIN 86.5–89.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.9–85.0 MIN 86.7–89.0 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.1–84.9 MIN 86.9–88.9 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.5) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-27.69
p-value
9.17e-69

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 81.1–84.9 MIN 85.5–89.9 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.3 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.5–84.7 MIN 85.8–89.5 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 81.9–84.7 MIN 86.1–89.3 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.4–84.7 MIN 86.2–89.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.5–84.6 MIN 86.4–89.0 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 83.4) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-28.78
p-value
1.29e-71

A low p-value means the two teams' average scores are statistically distinguishable — even when their ranges above overlap. Overlap describes where the final score could land; the test above is about whether the two averages differ. They are different claims, and either can hold without the other.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
POR 80.8–86.4 MIN 85.4–89.5 Overlap 1.01 pts Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 84.2) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

POR 81.4–85.9 MIN 85.6–89.3 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 84.2) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

POR 82.2–85.7 MIN 85.8–88.4 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 84.2) — by 2.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.6–85.5 MIN 85.9–88.2 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 84.2) — by 2.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

POR 82.8–85.3 MIN 85.9–88.1 No overlap Actual: POR 93, MIN 101

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) over Portland Fire (avg. 84.2) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-15.80
p-value
5.84e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–85.3 86.0–89.9 — pts — No
90% 82.4–85.3 86.2–89.4 — pts — No
85% 82.6–84.8 86.5–89.1 — pts — No
80% 82.9–84.6 86.6–88.9 — pts — No
75% 83.0–84.5 86.8–88.7 — pts — No
Reg — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–85.9 86.4–90.5 — pts — No
90% 82.3–85.4 86.5–89.6 — pts — No
85% 82.4–85.2 86.6–89.5 — pts — No
80% 82.5–85.1 86.7–89.4 — pts — No
75% 82.6–85.0 86.8–89.3 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.3–85.7 86.3–89.8 — pts — No
90% 81.6–85.3 86.4–89.6 — pts — No
85% 81.9–85.1 86.4–89.3 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.9 86.5–89.1 — pts — No
75% 82.2–84.8 86.7–89.0 — pts — No
Kevin — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–85.2 86.3–90.7 — pts — No
90% 82.0–85.0 86.5–90.0 — pts — No
85% 82.2–84.9 86.8–89.5 — pts — No
80% 82.4–84.8 86.8–89.4 — pts — No
75% 82.6–84.7 86.9–89.2 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–84.9 85.4–90.2 — pts — No
90% 80.9–84.5 85.8–89.8 — pts — No
85% 81.1–84.3 86.1–89.5 — pts — No
80% 81.3–84.1 86.2–89.3 — pts — No
75% 81.4–84.0 86.4–89.2 — pts — No
Ice — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–86.5 85.3–90.5 1.21 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.6 85.7–90.1 — pts — No
85% 82.3–85.1 86.0–89.8 — pts — No
80% 82.4–84.9 86.2–89.6 — pts — No
75% 82.4–84.8 86.3–89.4 — pts — No
Jamal — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.1 85.6–90.1 0.5 pts — No
90% 81.4–85.7 86.0–89.7 — pts — No
85% 81.7–85.4 86.2–89.5 — pts — No
80% 81.9–85.2 86.4–89.3 — pts — No
75% 82.1–85.1 86.5–89.1 — pts — No
Jordan — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.9–85.2 85.7–90.2 — pts — No
90% 81.2–85.1 86.0–89.9 — pts — No
85% 81.5–84.8 86.3–89.6 — pts — No
80% 82.2–84.5 86.5–89.4 — pts — No
75% 82.4–84.4 86.6–89.3 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–85.0 86.3–89.2 — pts — No
90% 81.6–84.7 86.5–89.1 — pts — No
85% 82.0–84.6 86.6–89.0 — pts — No
80% 82.1–84.5 86.7–88.8 — pts — No
75% 82.2–84.4 86.7–88.6 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–85.8 86.3–91.5 — pts — No
90% 81.5–85.5 86.5–89.6 — pts — No
85% 81.8–85.2 86.5–89.2 — pts — No
80% 81.9–85.0 86.7–89.0 — pts — No
75% 82.1–84.9 86.9–88.9 — pts — No
Lexi — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–84.9 85.5–89.9 — pts — No
90% 81.5–84.7 85.8–89.5 — pts — No
85% 81.9–84.7 86.1–89.3 — pts — No
80% 82.4–84.7 86.2–89.1 — pts — No
75% 82.5–84.6 86.4–89.0 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — POR at MIN — Actual: POR 93, MIN 101
Level POR range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.8–86.4 85.4–89.5 1.01 pts — No
90% 81.4–85.9 85.6–89.3 0.31 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.7 85.8–88.4 — pts — No
80% 82.6–85.5 85.9–88.2 — pts — No
75% 82.8–85.3 85.9–88.1 — pts — No