Clay's Almanac
WNBA · July 29, 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

Atlanta Dream at Dallas Wings

ATL 82 – DAL 81

July 29, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
All models: 3-9
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 ATL at DAL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

ATL — one dot per model DAL — one dot per model Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Vince Chambers
ATL 84.2–89.1 DAL 84.7–91.2 Overlap 4.37 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.6–88.7 DAL 85.1–90.0 Overlap 3.56 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.9–88.4 DAL 85.3–89.4 Overlap 3.14 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.1–88.2 DAL 85.5–88.9 Overlap 2.78 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–88.1 DAL 85.6–88.6 Overlap 2.48 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-2.78
p-value
6.10e-03

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
ATL 83.9–90.1 DAL 85.4–92.2 Overlap 4.72 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 88.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.4–89.6 DAL 85.6–90.9 Overlap 4.03 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 88.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.7–89.3 DAL 85.9–90.4 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 88.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–89.1 DAL 85.9–90.3 Overlap 3.14 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 88.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.2–88.8 DAL 86.2–90.2 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 88.1) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-4.62
p-value
6.97e-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.

Dr. Wallace
ATL 84.2–89.0 DAL 84.4–91.2 Overlap 4.55 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.6–88.6 DAL 84.6–90.1 Overlap 3.93 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.8–88.3 DAL 84.9–89.7 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–88.1 DAL 85.0–89.6 Overlap 3.11 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.2–88.0 DAL 85.1–89.3 Overlap 2.79 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.9) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-1.58
p-value
1.17e-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.

Kevin
ATL 84.7–89.0 DAL 83.1–91.3 Overlap 4.31 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.2–88.5 DAL 83.8–90.6 Overlap 3.25 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.4–88.3 DAL 84.2–90.2 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.5–88.1 DAL 84.5–89.8 Overlap 2.6 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.8–88.0 DAL 84.8–89.6 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-1.77
p-value
7.80e-02

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
ATL 85.0–89.5 DAL 83.7–89.9 Overlap 4.5 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.1–89.1 DAL 84.3–89.3 Overlap 4.04 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.2–88.6 DAL 84.5–88.5 Overlap 3.33 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.4–88.3 DAL 84.5–88.2 Overlap 2.82 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.6–88.0 DAL 84.7–88.2 Overlap 2.44 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.8) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
2.03
p-value
4.41e-02

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
ATL 84.4–88.4 DAL 84.4–89.8 Overlap 3.97 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.7–88.1 DAL 84.6–88.8 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.8–87.8 DAL 84.7–88.6 Overlap 3.0 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–87.7 DAL 84.9–88.4 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.5 DAL 85.0–87.9 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-0.24
p-value
8.07e-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.

Jamal
ATL 84.2–88.8 DAL 84.1–90.3 Overlap 4.52 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.6–88.4 DAL 84.3–89.1 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.8–88.2 DAL 84.4–88.4 Overlap 3.32 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–88.0 DAL 84.6–88.0 Overlap 2.96 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.8 DAL 84.7–87.9 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
0.39
p-value
6.95e-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.

Jordan
ATL 84.4–88.4 DAL 84.1–91.8 Overlap 4.08 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.7–88.1 DAL 84.3–90.5 Overlap 3.43 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.9–87.9 DAL 84.4–89.4 Overlap 3.0 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.1–87.7 DAL 84.8–89.2 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.6 DAL 84.8–88.9 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.6) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-1.15
p-value
2.51e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
ATL 84.8–88.6 DAL 83.8–91.9 Overlap 3.79 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–88.4 DAL 84.5–89.9 Overlap 3.35 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.2–88.3 DAL 84.5–89.5 Overlap 3.09 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.3–88.2 DAL 84.7–88.9 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.4–88.0 DAL 84.7–88.5 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-0.31
p-value
7.56e-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.

Maya Jefferson
ATL 84.9–88.4 DAL 82.9–90.7 Overlap 3.47 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.1–88.0 DAL 83.5–90.0 Overlap 2.89 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.9 DAL 83.9–89.6 Overlap 2.72 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.8 DAL 84.2–89.3 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.4–87.8 DAL 84.5–89.1 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 86.8) 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
-1.16
p-value
2.47e-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.

Lexi
ATL 84.3–88.7 DAL 83.7–90.5 Overlap 4.43 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.6–88.4 DAL 84.2–89.5 Overlap 3.72 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.9–88.1 DAL 84.5–89.2 Overlap 3.26 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 85.0–87.9 DAL 84.6–88.6 Overlap 2.9 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.2–87.8 DAL 84.8–88.3 Overlap 2.6 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Dallas Wings (avg. 86.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
0.41
p-value
6.79e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
ATL 83.2–89.0 DAL 84.4–92.3 Overlap 4.65 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.1) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 83.7–88.6 DAL 84.5–90.5 Overlap 4.04 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.1) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.0–88.3 DAL 84.8–90.0 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.1) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 84.2–88.0 DAL 85.2–89.8 Overlap 2.82 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.1) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 84.4–87.8 DAL 85.4–89.6 Overlap 2.45 pts Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Dallas Wings (avg. 87.5) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.1) — by 1.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-5.92
p-value
1.73e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–89.1 84.7–91.2 4.37 pts — No
90% 84.6–88.7 85.1–90.0 3.56 pts — No
85% 84.9–88.4 85.3–89.4 3.14 pts — No
80% 85.1–88.2 85.5–88.9 2.78 pts — No
75% 85.2–88.1 85.6–88.6 2.48 pts — No
Reg — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–90.1 85.4–92.2 4.72 pts — No
90% 84.4–89.6 85.6–90.9 4.03 pts — No
85% 84.7–89.3 85.9–90.4 3.44 pts — No
80% 85.0–89.1 85.9–90.3 3.14 pts — No
75% 85.2–88.8 86.2–90.2 2.63 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–89.0 84.4–91.2 4.55 pts — No
90% 84.6–88.6 84.6–90.1 3.93 pts — No
85% 84.8–88.3 84.9–89.7 3.44 pts — No
80% 85.0–88.1 85.0–89.6 3.11 pts — No
75% 85.2–88.0 85.1–89.3 2.79 pts — No
Kevin — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–89.0 83.1–91.3 4.31 pts — No
90% 85.2–88.5 83.8–90.6 3.25 pts — No
85% 85.4–88.3 84.2–90.2 2.88 pts — No
80% 85.5–88.1 84.5–89.8 2.6 pts — No
75% 85.8–88.0 84.8–89.6 2.16 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–89.5 83.7–89.9 4.5 pts — No
90% 85.1–89.1 84.3–89.3 4.04 pts — No
85% 85.2–88.6 84.5–88.5 3.33 pts — No
80% 85.4–88.3 84.5–88.2 2.82 pts — No
75% 85.6–88.0 84.7–88.2 2.44 pts — No
Ice — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–88.4 84.4–89.8 3.97 pts — No
90% 84.7–88.1 84.6–88.8 3.46 pts — No
85% 84.8–87.8 84.7–88.6 3.0 pts — No
80% 85.0–87.7 84.9–88.4 2.74 pts — No
75% 85.2–87.5 85.0–87.9 2.27 pts — No
Jamal — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–88.8 84.1–90.3 4.52 pts — No
90% 84.6–88.4 84.3–89.1 3.79 pts — No
85% 84.8–88.2 84.4–88.4 3.32 pts — No
80% 85.0–88.0 84.6–88.0 2.96 pts — No
75% 85.2–87.8 84.7–87.9 2.65 pts — No
Jordan — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–88.4 84.1–91.8 4.08 pts — No
90% 84.7–88.1 84.3–90.5 3.43 pts — No
85% 84.9–87.9 84.4–89.4 3.0 pts — No
80% 85.1–87.7 84.8–89.2 2.67 pts — No
75% 85.2–87.6 84.8–88.9 2.4 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–88.6 83.8–91.9 3.79 pts — No
90% 85.0–88.4 84.5–89.9 3.35 pts — No
85% 85.2–88.3 84.5–89.5 3.09 pts — No
80% 85.3–88.2 84.7–88.9 2.88 pts — No
75% 85.4–88.0 84.7–88.5 2.51 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–88.4 82.9–90.7 3.47 pts — No
90% 85.1–88.0 83.5–90.0 2.89 pts — No
85% 85.2–87.9 83.9–89.6 2.72 pts — No
80% 85.2–87.8 84.2–89.3 2.59 pts — No
75% 85.4–87.8 84.5–89.1 2.41 pts — No
Lexi — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.3–88.7 83.7–90.5 4.43 pts — No
90% 84.6–88.4 84.2–89.5 3.72 pts — No
85% 84.9–88.1 84.5–89.2 3.26 pts — No
80% 85.0–87.9 84.6–88.6 2.9 pts — No
75% 85.2–87.8 84.8–88.3 2.6 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — ATL at DAL — Actual: ATL 82, DAL 81
Level ATL range DAL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–89.0 84.4–92.3 4.65 pts — No
90% 83.7–88.6 84.5–90.5 4.04 pts — No
85% 84.0–88.3 84.8–90.0 3.44 pts — No
80% 84.2–88.0 85.2–89.8 2.82 pts — No
75% 84.4–87.8 85.4–89.6 2.45 pts — No