Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 19, 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

Chicago Sky at Atlanta Dream

CHI 91 – ATL 93

July 19, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 1-11
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 CHI at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Vince Chambers
CHI 84.9–90.4 ATL 84.1–89.3 Overlap 4.44 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.3–89.9 ATL 84.5–88.9 Overlap 3.57 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.6–89.6 ATL 84.8–88.6 Overlap 3.01 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.8–89.4 ATL 85.0–88.4 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–89.2 ATL 85.2–88.2 Overlap 2.21 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
5.43
p-value
1.71e-07

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
CHI 84.8–90.9 ATL 84.4–89.4 Overlap 4.61 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.3–90.4 ATL 84.8–89.0 Overlap 3.71 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.6–90.1 ATL 85.0–88.7 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.8–89.8 ATL 85.2–88.5 Overlap 2.68 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–89.6 ATL 85.4–88.4 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
5.35
p-value
2.54e-07

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
CHI 85.4–90.9 ATL 85.0–88.5 Overlap 3.15 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.8–89.5 ATL 85.1–88.2 Overlap 2.36 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.2–89.2 ATL 85.2–87.6 Overlap 1.42 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.3–89.1 ATL 85.5–87.5 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.5–88.9 ATL 85.5–87.5 Overlap 1.01 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
5.74
p-value
3.83e-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.

Kevin
CHI 84.8–90.4 ATL 84.9–88.5 Overlap 3.6 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.3–90.0 ATL 85.2–88.2 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.6–89.7 ATL 85.4–88.0 Overlap 2.44 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.8–89.5 ATL 85.5–87.9 Overlap 2.07 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–89.3 ATL 85.6–87.7 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
6.26
p-value
3.21e-09

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
CHI 84.4–88.6 ATL 85.2–88.7 Overlap 3.33 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 84.7–88.2 ATL 85.3–88.4 Overlap 2.93 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.0–88.0 ATL 85.3–88.2 Overlap 2.68 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.1–87.8 ATL 85.4–87.9 Overlap 2.43 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.3–87.7 ATL 85.6–87.7 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Chicago Sky (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-1.13
p-value
2.61e-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
CHI 84.5–89.9 ATL 84.5–88.3 Overlap 3.85 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 84.9–89.5 ATL 84.8–88.0 Overlap 3.1 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.2–89.2 ATL 85.0–87.8 Overlap 2.61 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.4–89.0 ATL 85.1–87.6 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.6–88.8 ATL 85.3–87.5 Overlap 1.92 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
5.40
p-value
2.19e-07

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
CHI 84.1–89.5 ATL 84.0–88.9 Overlap 4.82 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 84.6–89.2 ATL 84.4–88.5 Overlap 3.88 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.1–88.8 ATL 84.7–88.2 Overlap 3.11 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.6–88.6 ATL 84.9–88.0 Overlap 2.49 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–88.5 ATL 85.0–87.9 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
4.67
p-value
5.66e-06

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
CHI 84.5–91.0 ATL 84.3–88.9 Overlap 4.39 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.0–90.5 ATL 84.6–88.5 Overlap 3.5 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.4–90.1 ATL 84.9–88.3 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.6–89.9 ATL 85.1–88.1 Overlap 2.47 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.9–89.7 ATL 85.2–88.0 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
6.50
p-value
7.88e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
CHI 84.5–89.9 ATL 84.0–88.8 Overlap 4.24 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.5–89.4 ATL 84.4–88.4 Overlap 2.9 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–89.0 ATL 84.7–88.1 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.1–88.8 ATL 84.8–87.9 Overlap 1.87 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.4–88.7 ATL 85.0–87.8 Overlap 1.42 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
6.18
p-value
3.92e-09

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
CHI 84.8–90.0 ATL 84.5–88.6 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.0–88.9 ATL 84.8–88.2 Overlap 3.21 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.6–88.7 ATL 85.0–88.0 Overlap 2.38 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.7–88.6 ATL 85.2–87.9 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.8–88.5 ATL 85.3–87.7 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
4.22
p-value
4.06e-05

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
CHI 84.4–90.1 ATL 84.2–88.8 Overlap 4.37 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 84.9–89.6 ATL 84.6–88.4 Overlap 3.53 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CHI 85.5–89.3 ATL 84.8–88.2 Overlap 2.64 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–88.8 ATL 85.0–88.0 Overlap 2.03 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.0–88.7 ATL 85.2–87.8 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
4.96
p-value
1.60e-06

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
CHI 84.9–91.6 ATL 83.1–87.7 Overlap 2.79 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.5–91.1 ATL 83.5–87.3 Overlap 1.88 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 85.8–90.7 ATL 83.7–87.1 Overlap 1.29 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.1–90.5 ATL 83.9–86.9 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 86.3–90.2 ATL 84.1–86.8 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.4) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
15.55
p-value
1.44e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–90.4 84.1–89.3 4.44 pts — No
90% 85.3–89.9 84.5–88.9 3.57 pts — No
85% 85.6–89.6 84.8–88.6 3.01 pts — No
80% 85.8–89.4 85.0–88.4 2.57 pts — No
75% 86.0–89.2 85.2–88.2 2.21 pts — No
Reg — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–90.9 84.4–89.4 4.61 pts — No
90% 85.3–90.4 84.8–89.0 3.71 pts — No
85% 85.6–90.1 85.0–88.7 3.13 pts — No
80% 85.8–89.8 85.2–88.5 2.68 pts — No
75% 86.0–89.6 85.4–88.4 2.31 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–90.9 85.0–88.5 3.15 pts — No
90% 85.8–89.5 85.1–88.2 2.36 pts — No
85% 86.2–89.2 85.2–87.6 1.42 pts — No
80% 86.3–89.1 85.5–87.5 1.22 pts — No
75% 86.5–88.9 85.5–87.5 1.01 pts — No
Kevin — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–90.4 84.9–88.5 3.6 pts — No
90% 85.3–90.0 85.2–88.2 2.92 pts — No
85% 85.6–89.7 85.4–88.0 2.44 pts — No
80% 85.8–89.5 85.5–87.9 2.07 pts — No
75% 86.0–89.3 85.6–87.7 1.76 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–88.6 85.2–88.7 3.33 pts — No
90% 84.7–88.2 85.3–88.4 2.93 pts — No
85% 85.0–88.0 85.3–88.2 2.68 pts — No
80% 85.1–87.8 85.4–87.9 2.43 pts — No
75% 85.3–87.7 85.6–87.7 2.14 pts — No
Ice — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.9 84.5–88.3 3.85 pts — No
90% 84.9–89.5 84.8–88.0 3.1 pts — No
85% 85.2–89.2 85.0–87.8 2.61 pts — No
80% 85.4–89.0 85.1–87.6 2.24 pts — No
75% 85.6–88.8 85.3–87.5 1.92 pts — No
Jamal — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.1–89.5 84.0–88.9 4.82 pts — No
90% 84.6–89.2 84.4–88.5 3.88 pts — No
85% 85.1–88.8 84.7–88.2 3.11 pts — No
80% 85.6–88.6 84.9–88.0 2.49 pts — No
75% 86.0–88.5 85.0–87.9 1.88 pts — No
Jordan — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–91.0 84.3–88.9 4.39 pts — No
90% 85.0–90.5 84.6–88.5 3.5 pts — No
85% 85.4–90.1 84.9–88.3 2.92 pts — No
80% 85.6–89.9 85.1–88.1 2.47 pts — No
75% 85.9–89.7 85.2–88.0 2.1 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.9 84.0–88.8 4.24 pts — No
90% 85.5–89.4 84.4–88.4 2.9 pts — No
85% 86.0–89.0 84.7–88.1 2.16 pts — No
80% 86.1–88.8 84.8–87.9 1.87 pts — No
75% 86.4–88.7 85.0–87.8 1.42 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–90.0 84.5–88.6 3.79 pts — No
90% 85.0–88.9 84.8–88.2 3.21 pts — No
85% 85.6–88.7 85.0–88.0 2.38 pts — No
80% 85.7–88.6 85.2–87.9 2.13 pts — No
75% 85.8–88.5 85.3–87.7 1.88 pts — No
Lexi — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–90.1 84.2–88.8 4.37 pts — No
90% 84.9–89.6 84.6–88.4 3.53 pts — No
85% 85.5–89.3 84.8–88.2 2.64 pts — No
80% 86.0–88.8 85.0–88.0 2.03 pts — No
75% 86.0–88.7 85.2–87.8 1.81 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at ATL — Actual: CHI 91, ATL 93
Level CHI range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–91.6 83.1–87.7 2.79 pts — No
90% 85.5–91.1 83.5–87.3 1.88 pts — No
85% 85.8–90.7 83.7–87.1 1.29 pts — No
80% 86.1–90.5 83.9–86.9 0.84 pts — No
75% 86.3–90.2 84.1–86.8 0.46 pts — No