Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 22, 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

Minnesota Lynx at Seattle Storm

MIN 86 – SEA 76

July 22, 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 MIN at SEA

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model SEA — one dot per model Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Vince Chambers
MIN 85.5–90.0 SEA 82.0–86.8 Overlap 1.31 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.4) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–89.6 SEA 82.4–86.4 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.4) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.1–89.4 SEA 82.6–86.1 Overlap 0.08 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.4) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.2–89.2 SEA 82.8–85.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.4) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–89.0 SEA 83.0–85.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.4) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
22.47
p-value
8.77e-56

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
MIN 85.5–91.0 SEA 81.2–87.7 Overlap 2.22 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.5) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–90.6 SEA 81.8–87.2 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.5) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–90.3 SEA 82.1–86.9 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.5) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.5–90.1 SEA 82.4–86.6 Overlap 0.14 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.5) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.6–89.9 SEA 82.6–86.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Seattle Storm (avg. 84.5) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
19.68
p-value
1.19e-47

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
MIN 86.1–90.2 SEA 81.6–87.1 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.3–90.0 SEA 81.9–86.4 Overlap 0.05 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.4–89.6 SEA 82.3–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.6–89.2 SEA 82.7–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–89.1 SEA 83.0–84.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
22.55
p-value
5.79e-56

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
MIN 86.8–90.5 SEA 80.7–86.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.3 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–90.1 SEA 81.7–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.6 SEA 81.9–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.4 SEA 82.1–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.1–89.3 SEA 82.5–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
24.65
p-value
2.21e-59

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

Dr. Lila Shah
MIN 86.3–90.4 SEA 80.1–85.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Seattle Storm (avg. 82.6) — by 5.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–90.2 SEA 80.4–84.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Seattle Storm (avg. 82.6) — by 5.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.6–89.6 SEA 80.9–84.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Seattle Storm (avg. 82.6) — by 5.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.5 SEA 81.3–83.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Seattle Storm (avg. 82.6) — by 5.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–89.4 SEA 81.5–83.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.1) over Seattle Storm (avg. 82.6) — by 5.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
33.87
p-value
3.05e-83

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
MIN 86.3–90.2 SEA 80.5–86.9 Overlap 0.61 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.4–89.1 SEA 81.0–86.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.6–88.9 SEA 81.3–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–88.8 SEA 81.6–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–88.7 SEA 81.8–85.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
24.54
p-value
7.60e-57

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
MIN 86.4–90.6 SEA 80.9–86.7 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.6–89.7 SEA 81.3–86.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.7–89.4 SEA 81.4–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.1 SEA 81.7–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.9–89.0 SEA 82.2–85.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
22.87
p-value
2.64e-56

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
MIN 85.6–90.0 SEA 81.1–87.2 Overlap 1.55 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.0–89.6 SEA 81.5–86.0 Overlap 0.08 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.2–89.4 SEA 81.9–85.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.4–89.2 SEA 82.0–85.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.1 SEA 82.1–84.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
24.52
p-value
8.55e-59

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

Darren "Dimes" Lin
MIN 85.4–90.5 SEA 80.7–85.8 Overlap 0.37 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–90.1 SEA 81.3–85.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.8 SEA 81.9–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.6 SEA 82.1–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.4 SEA 82.3–84.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.6) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
25.25
p-value
1.11e-62

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
MIN 86.0–89.9 SEA 80.6–85.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.5 SEA 80.9–85.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.5–89.1 SEA 81.9–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.0 SEA 82.0–85.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 87.0–88.9 SEA 82.5–84.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.9) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.7) — by 4.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
26.39
p-value
1.89e-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.

Lexi
MIN 85.7–90.8 SEA 79.9–88.1 Overlap 2.42 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–90.2 SEA 80.7–87.1 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.5–89.7 SEA 81.8–86.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.6 SEA 82.3–85.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.8–89.3 SEA 82.5–85.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.9) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
17.46
p-value
1.13e-39

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
MIN 84.7–90.3 SEA 81.5–86.4 Overlap 1.65 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.2–89.8 SEA 81.9–85.8 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.5–89.6 SEA 82.0–85.5 Overlap 0.03 pts Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.3 SEA 82.3–85.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.8) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.9–89.1 SEA 82.5–85.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) over Seattle Storm (avg. 83.8) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
20.65
p-value
7.12e-51

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 — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.5–90.0 82.0–86.8 1.31 pts — No
90% 85.8–89.6 82.4–86.4 0.56 pts — No
85% 86.1–89.4 82.6–86.1 0.08 pts — No
80% 86.2–89.2 82.8–85.9 — pts — No
75% 86.4–89.0 83.0–85.8 — pts — No
Reg — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.5–91.0 81.2–87.7 2.22 pts — No
90% 85.9–90.6 81.8–87.2 1.25 pts — No
85% 86.2–90.3 82.1–86.9 0.62 pts — No
80% 86.5–90.1 82.4–86.6 0.14 pts — No
75% 86.6–89.9 82.6–86.4 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.1–90.2 81.6–87.1 0.99 pts — No
90% 86.3–90.0 81.9–86.4 0.05 pts — No
85% 86.4–89.6 82.3–85.7 — pts — No
80% 86.6–89.2 82.7–85.1 — pts — No
75% 86.7–89.1 83.0–84.9 — pts — No
Kevin — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.8–90.5 80.7–86.1 — pts — No
90% 86.9–90.1 81.7–85.7 — pts — No
85% 87.0–89.6 81.9–85.4 — pts — No
80% 87.0–89.4 82.1–85.3 — pts — No
75% 87.1–89.3 82.5–85.2 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.3–90.4 80.1–85.0 — pts — No
90% 86.5–90.2 80.4–84.8 — pts — No
85% 86.6–89.6 80.9–84.4 — pts — No
80% 86.8–89.5 81.3–83.9 — pts — No
75% 87.0–89.4 81.5–83.8 — pts — No
Ice — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.3–90.2 80.5–86.9 0.61 pts — No
90% 86.4–89.1 81.0–86.4 — pts — No
85% 86.6–88.9 81.3–86.0 — pts — No
80% 86.7–88.8 81.6–85.7 — pts — No
75% 86.9–88.7 81.8–85.5 — pts — No
Jamal — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.4–90.6 80.9–86.7 0.31 pts — No
90% 86.6–89.7 81.3–86.0 — pts — No
85% 86.7–89.4 81.4–85.7 — pts — No
80% 86.8–89.1 81.7–85.3 — pts — No
75% 86.9–89.0 82.2–85.0 — pts — No
Jordan — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.6–90.0 81.1–87.2 1.55 pts — No
90% 86.0–89.6 81.5–86.0 0.08 pts — No
85% 86.2–89.4 81.9–85.5 — pts — No
80% 86.4–89.2 82.0–85.0 — pts — No
75% 86.5–89.1 82.1–84.9 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–90.5 80.7–85.8 0.37 pts — No
90% 85.8–90.1 81.3–85.6 — pts — No
85% 86.1–89.8 81.9–85.3 — pts — No
80% 86.3–89.6 82.1–85.1 — pts — No
75% 86.5–89.4 82.3–84.8 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.0–89.9 80.6–85.6 — pts — No
90% 86.3–89.5 80.9–85.3 — pts — No
85% 86.5–89.1 81.9–85.1 — pts — No
80% 86.8–89.0 82.0–85.0 — pts — No
75% 87.0–88.9 82.5–84.9 — pts — No
Lexi — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.7–90.8 79.9–88.1 2.42 pts — No
90% 86.2–90.2 80.7–87.1 0.94 pts — No
85% 86.5–89.7 81.8–86.3 — pts — No
80% 86.8–89.6 82.3–85.7 — pts — No
75% 86.8–89.3 82.5–85.4 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at SEA — Actual: MIN 86, SEA 76
Level MIN range SEA range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–90.3 81.5–86.4 1.65 pts — No
90% 85.2–89.8 81.9–85.8 0.58 pts — No
85% 85.5–89.6 82.0–85.5 0.03 pts — No
80% 85.7–89.3 82.3–85.2 — pts — No
75% 85.9–89.1 82.5–85.1 — pts — No