Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 28, 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

Connecticut Sun at Washington Mystics

CON 84 – WAS 92

July 28, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 0-12
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 CON at WAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CON — one dot per model WAS — one dot per model Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Vince Chambers
CON 81.7–86.1 WAS 79.5–84.5 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.8 WAS 79.9–84.1 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.3–85.5 WAS 80.1–83.9 Overlap 1.61 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.4–85.3 WAS 80.3–83.7 Overlap 1.23 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.6–85.2 WAS 80.5–83.5 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.0) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
12.61
p-value
3.62e-27

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

Reg
CON 82.3–86.1 WAS 79.7–84.4 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

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

CON 82.5–86.0 WAS 80.1–84.0 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

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

CON 82.7–85.7 WAS 80.3–83.8 Overlap 1.08 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

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

CON 82.8–85.6 WAS 80.5–83.6 Overlap 0.82 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

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

CON 82.9–85.4 WAS 80.7–83.4 Overlap 0.57 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

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

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
12.75
p-value
1.31e-27

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

Dr. Wallace
CON 81.4–86.1 WAS 79.8–84.7 Overlap 3.32 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 82.0–85.4 WAS 80.2–84.3 Overlap 2.3 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.2–85.0 WAS 80.4–84.1 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.5–84.9 WAS 80.6–83.9 Overlap 1.4 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.6–84.8 WAS 80.8–83.7 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
9.20
p-value
4.67e-17

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

Kevin
CON 80.7–86.6 WAS 80.5–85.3 Overlap 4.62 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.1–86.1 WAS 80.8–85.0 Overlap 3.84 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.4–85.8 WAS 80.9–84.5 Overlap 3.03 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.7–85.5 WAS 81.1–84.0 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.9–85.3 WAS 81.2–83.8 Overlap 1.94 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
6.53
p-value
5.09e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
CON 79.7–85.1 WAS 80.0–84.8 Overlap 4.79 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 80.2–84.7 WAS 80.4–84.4 Overlap 4.02 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 80.4–84.4 WAS 80.6–84.1 Overlap 3.52 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 80.7–84.2 WAS 80.8–84.0 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 80.8–84.0 WAS 81.0–83.8 Overlap 2.81 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
0.28
p-value
7.77e-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
CON 81.0–85.6 WAS 79.8–84.5 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.3–85.3 WAS 80.2–84.1 Overlap 2.84 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.6–85.2 WAS 80.4–83.9 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.0 WAS 80.6–83.7 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.1–84.9 WAS 80.8–83.5 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
6.84
p-value
1.05e-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.

Jamal
CON 80.6–86.3 WAS 79.7–84.8 Overlap 4.17 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.1–85.8 WAS 80.1–84.4 Overlap 3.31 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.4–85.6 WAS 80.4–84.1 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.6–85.3 WAS 80.6–83.9 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.8–85.1 WAS 80.7–83.8 Overlap 1.95 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
7.20
p-value
1.22e-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
CON 81.2–87.1 WAS 80.3–85.0 Overlap 3.83 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.3–86.3 WAS 80.7–84.6 Overlap 3.3 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.4–85.7 WAS 80.9–84.4 Overlap 2.96 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.8–85.3 WAS 81.1–84.2 Overlap 2.38 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.2 WAS 81.3–84.0 Overlap 2.04 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
6.19
p-value
3.83e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
CON 80.8–86.5 WAS 80.3–84.5 Overlap 3.67 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.3–86.1 WAS 80.6–84.1 Overlap 2.87 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.6–85.8 WAS 80.8–83.9 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.8–85.5 WAS 81.0–83.8 Overlap 1.95 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.4 WAS 81.1–83.6 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
8.23
p-value
3.24e-14

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

Maya Jefferson
CON 81.1–86.2 WAS 80.7–84.7 Overlap 3.55 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.5–85.8 WAS 81.1–84.4 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.8–85.5 WAS 81.2–84.2 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.3 WAS 81.3–84.0 Overlap 1.97 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.2–85.1 WAS 81.3–83.8 Overlap 1.63 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
7.73
p-value
5.03e-13

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

Lexi
CON 81.4–86.6 WAS 80.3–85.1 Overlap 3.71 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.6–86.1 WAS 80.8–84.5 Overlap 2.87 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.0–85.7 WAS 80.9–84.3 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.1–85.3 WAS 81.2–84.2 Overlap 2.05 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 82.7–84.9 WAS 81.3–84.1 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
6.31
p-value
1.72e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
CON 80.6–86.9 WAS 79.4–84.0 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.1) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

CON 81.1–86.4 WAS 80.2–83.8 Overlap 2.75 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.1) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.4–86.1 WAS 80.6–83.5 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.1) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.7–85.8 WAS 80.8–83.4 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.1) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CON 81.9–85.6 WAS 81.0–83.3 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: CON 84, WAS 92

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.1) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
9.41
p-value
1.74e-17

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 — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–86.1 79.5–84.5 2.88 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.8 79.9–84.1 2.11 pts — No
85% 82.3–85.5 80.1–83.9 1.61 pts — No
80% 82.4–85.3 80.3–83.7 1.23 pts — No
75% 82.6–85.2 80.5–83.5 0.91 pts — No
Reg — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.3–86.1 79.7–84.4 2.11 pts — No
90% 82.5–86.0 80.1–84.0 1.54 pts — No
85% 82.7–85.7 80.3–83.8 1.08 pts — No
80% 82.8–85.6 80.5–83.6 0.82 pts — No
75% 82.9–85.4 80.7–83.4 0.57 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–86.1 79.8–84.7 3.32 pts — No
90% 82.0–85.4 80.2–84.3 2.3 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.0 80.4–84.1 1.83 pts — No
80% 82.5–84.9 80.6–83.9 1.4 pts — No
75% 82.6–84.8 80.8–83.7 1.06 pts — No
Kevin — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–86.6 80.5–85.3 4.62 pts — No
90% 81.1–86.1 80.8–85.0 3.84 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.8 80.9–84.5 3.03 pts — No
80% 81.7–85.5 81.1–84.0 2.34 pts — No
75% 81.9–85.3 81.2–83.8 1.94 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.7–85.1 80.0–84.8 4.79 pts — No
90% 80.2–84.7 80.4–84.4 4.02 pts — No
85% 80.4–84.4 80.6–84.1 3.52 pts — No
80% 80.7–84.2 80.8–84.0 3.13 pts — No
75% 80.8–84.0 81.0–83.8 2.81 pts — No
Ice — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–85.6 79.8–84.5 3.46 pts — No
90% 81.3–85.3 80.2–84.1 2.84 pts — No
85% 81.6–85.2 80.4–83.9 2.24 pts — No
80% 82.0–85.0 80.6–83.7 1.73 pts — No
75% 82.1–84.9 80.8–83.5 1.46 pts — No
Jamal — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–86.3 79.7–84.8 4.17 pts — No
90% 81.1–85.8 80.1–84.4 3.31 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.6 80.4–84.1 2.74 pts — No
80% 81.6–85.3 80.6–83.9 2.31 pts — No
75% 81.8–85.1 80.7–83.8 1.95 pts — No
Jordan — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.2–87.1 80.3–85.0 3.83 pts — No
90% 81.3–86.3 80.7–84.6 3.3 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.7 80.9–84.4 2.96 pts — No
80% 81.8–85.3 81.1–84.2 2.38 pts — No
75% 82.0–85.2 81.3–84.0 2.04 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.8–86.5 80.3–84.5 3.67 pts — No
90% 81.3–86.1 80.6–84.1 2.87 pts — No
85% 81.6–85.8 80.8–83.9 2.35 pts — No
80% 81.8–85.5 81.0–83.8 1.95 pts — No
75% 82.0–85.4 81.1–83.6 1.62 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.2 80.7–84.7 3.55 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.8 81.1–84.4 2.88 pts — No
85% 81.8–85.5 81.2–84.2 2.41 pts — No
80% 82.0–85.3 81.3–84.0 1.97 pts — No
75% 82.2–85.1 81.3–83.8 1.63 pts — No
Lexi — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–86.6 80.3–85.1 3.71 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.1 80.8–84.5 2.87 pts — No
85% 82.0–85.7 80.9–84.3 2.31 pts — No
80% 82.1–85.3 81.2–84.2 2.05 pts — No
75% 82.7–84.9 81.3–84.1 1.43 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CON at WAS — Actual: CON 84, WAS 92
Level CON range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–86.9 79.4–84.0 3.44 pts — No
90% 81.1–86.4 80.2–83.8 2.75 pts — No
85% 81.4–86.1 80.6–83.5 2.13 pts — No
80% 81.7–85.8 80.8–83.4 1.71 pts — No
75% 81.9–85.6 81.0–83.3 1.45 pts — No