Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 5, 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

Phoenix Mercury at Atlanta Dream

PHX 82 – ATL 96

August 5, 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 PHX at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

PHX — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Vince Chambers
PHX 81.1–86.8 ATL 84.7–89.4 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–86.4 ATL 85.1–89.1 Overlap 1.31 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–86.1 ATL 85.3–88.8 Overlap 0.76 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–85.8 ATL 85.5–88.6 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.3–85.6 ATL 85.7–88.5 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-15.05
p-value
7.41e-29

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
PHX 81.0–86.9 ATL 84.3–89.9 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–86.4 ATL 84.8–89.5 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–86.1 ATL 85.1–89.2 Overlap 1.08 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.0–85.9 ATL 85.3–88.9 Overlap 0.62 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.2–85.7 ATL 85.5–88.7 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-13.89
p-value
1.46e-26

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 Tol Warning
PHX 81.6–85.8 ATL 84.9–88.4 Overlap 0.88 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.9–85.4 ATL 85.2–88.4 Overlap 0.21 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 2.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–85.2 ATL 85.3–87.9 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 2.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.3–85.0 ATL 85.3–87.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 2.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.4–84.9 ATL 85.6–87.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 2.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-16.18
p-value
2.83e-31

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
PHX 80.7–87.1 ATL 84.4–90.1 Overlap 2.71 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.2–86.6 ATL 84.8–89.6 Overlap 1.75 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–86.2 ATL 85.1–89.3 Overlap 1.12 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–86.0 ATL 85.3–89.1 Overlap 0.64 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.0–85.8 ATL 85.5–88.9 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-13.93
p-value
1.54e-26

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 Tol Warning
PHX 81.1–85.2 ATL 84.7–88.4 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.4–84.9 ATL 84.7–88.2 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.6–84.6 ATL 84.8–88.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 3.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.8–84.5 ATL 84.8–87.8 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 3.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 81.9–84.3 ATL 84.9–87.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-18.28
p-value
2.58e-35

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
PHX 81.0–86.2 ATL 84.4–88.5 Overlap 1.75 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–85.8 ATL 84.8–88.2 Overlap 1.02 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.7–85.5 ATL 85.0–87.9 Overlap 0.53 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.9–85.3 ATL 85.1–87.8 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–85.1 ATL 85.3–87.6 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 2.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-15.70
p-value
5.26e-30

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
PHX 81.1–86.6 ATL 84.4–88.7 Overlap 2.17 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–86.1 ATL 84.7–88.3 Overlap 1.39 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–85.8 ATL 85.0–88.1 Overlap 0.88 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.0–85.6 ATL 85.1–87.9 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.2–85.4 ATL 85.3–87.8 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.8) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-14.07
p-value
1.73e-26

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
PHX 81.1–86.6 ATL 84.4–88.9 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.6–86.2 ATL 84.8–88.6 Overlap 1.43 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–85.9 ATL 85.0–88.3 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.1–85.7 ATL 85.2–88.1 Overlap 0.5 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.3–85.5 ATL 85.3–88.0 Overlap 0.16 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.9) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-14.12
p-value
8.98e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin Tol Warning
PHX 81.9–86.4 ATL 84.4–89.0 Overlap 2.01 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.0–85.9 ATL 84.7–88.6 Overlap 1.15 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.3–85.4 ATL 85.0–88.4 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 3.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.4–84.9 ATL 85.2–88.2 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 3.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.6–84.8 ATL 85.3–88.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 3.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-15.40
p-value
6.97e-30

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 Tol Warning
PHX 81.1–86.1 ATL 85.1–89.3 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.5–85.7 ATL 85.3–88.2 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.7–85.4 ATL 85.4–88.1 Overlap 0.05 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 81.9–85.2 ATL 85.5–88.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

PHX 82.1–85.0 ATL 85.6–88.0 No overlap Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.6) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-15.76
p-value
1.19e-30

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
PHX 81.5–86.5 ATL 84.3–88.8 Overlap 2.17 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–86.1 ATL 84.7–88.5 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.2–85.8 ATL 84.9–88.2 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.4–85.6 ATL 85.1–88.1 Overlap 0.53 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

PHX 82.5–85.5 ATL 85.2–87.9 Overlap 0.21 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.0) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-13.87
p-value
1.82e-26

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
PHX 81.1–87.4 ATL 83.2–89.6 Overlap 4.26 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.6–86.9 ATL 83.7–89.1 Overlap 3.24 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.9–86.6 ATL 84.0–88.7 Overlap 2.57 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.2–86.3 ATL 84.3–88.5 Overlap 2.05 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.4–86.1 ATL 84.5–88.3 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 84.2) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-8.53
p-value
5.72e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.8 84.7–89.4 2.15 pts — No
90% 81.5–86.4 85.1–89.1 1.31 pts — No
85% 81.8–86.1 85.3–88.8 0.76 pts — No
80% 82.1–85.8 85.5–88.6 0.33 pts — No
75% 82.3–85.6 85.7–88.5 — pts — No
Reg — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.9 84.3–89.9 2.59 pts — No
90% 81.5–86.4 84.8–89.5 1.68 pts — No
85% 81.8–86.1 85.1–89.2 1.08 pts — No
80% 82.0–85.9 85.3–88.9 0.62 pts — No
75% 82.2–85.7 85.5–88.7 0.24 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.6–85.8 84.9–88.4 0.88 pts Yes No
90% 81.9–85.4 85.2–88.4 0.21 pts Yes No
85% 82.1–85.2 85.3–87.9 — pts Yes No
80% 82.3–85.0 85.3–87.8 — pts Yes No
75% 82.4–84.9 85.6–87.6 — pts Yes No
Kevin — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–87.1 84.4–90.1 2.71 pts — No
90% 81.2–86.6 84.8–89.6 1.75 pts — No
85% 81.5–86.2 85.1–89.3 1.12 pts — No
80% 81.8–86.0 85.3–89.1 0.64 pts — No
75% 82.0–85.8 85.5–88.9 0.24 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–85.2 84.7–88.4 0.46 pts Yes No
90% 81.4–84.9 84.7–88.2 0.13 pts Yes No
85% 81.6–84.6 84.8–88.0 — pts Yes No
80% 81.8–84.5 84.8–87.8 — pts Yes No
75% 81.9–84.3 84.9–87.6 — pts Yes No
Ice — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.2 84.4–88.5 1.75 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.8 84.8–88.2 1.02 pts — No
85% 81.7–85.5 85.0–87.9 0.53 pts — No
80% 81.9–85.3 85.1–87.8 0.16 pts — No
75% 82.1–85.1 85.3–87.6 — pts — No
Jamal — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.6 84.4–88.7 2.17 pts — No
90% 81.5–86.1 84.7–88.3 1.39 pts — No
85% 81.8–85.8 85.0–88.1 0.88 pts — No
80% 82.0–85.6 85.1–87.9 0.49 pts — No
75% 82.2–85.4 85.3–87.8 0.16 pts — No
Jordan — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.6 84.4–88.9 2.24 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.2 84.8–88.6 1.43 pts — No
85% 81.9–85.9 85.0–88.3 0.91 pts — No
80% 82.1–85.7 85.2–88.1 0.5 pts — No
75% 82.3–85.5 85.3–88.0 0.16 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.9–86.4 84.4–89.0 2.01 pts Yes No
90% 82.0–85.9 84.7–88.6 1.15 pts Yes No
85% 82.3–85.4 85.0–88.4 0.46 pts Yes No
80% 82.4–84.9 85.2–88.2 — pts Yes No
75% 82.6–84.8 85.3–88.0 — pts Yes No
Maya Jefferson — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–86.1 85.1–89.3 0.93 pts Yes No
90% 81.5–85.7 85.3–88.2 0.42 pts Yes No
85% 81.7–85.4 85.4–88.1 0.05 pts Yes No
80% 81.9–85.2 85.5–88.0 — pts Yes No
75% 82.1–85.0 85.6–88.0 — pts Yes No
Lexi — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.5–86.5 84.3–88.8 2.17 pts — No
90% 81.9–86.1 84.7–88.5 1.41 pts — No
85% 82.2–85.8 84.9–88.2 0.91 pts — No
80% 82.4–85.6 85.1–88.1 0.53 pts — No
75% 82.5–85.5 85.2–87.9 0.21 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — PHX at ATL — Actual: PHX 82, ATL 96
Level PHX range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.1–87.4 83.2–89.6 4.26 pts — No
90% 81.6–86.9 83.7–89.1 3.24 pts — No
85% 81.9–86.6 84.0–88.7 2.57 pts — No
80% 82.2–86.3 84.3–88.5 2.05 pts — No
75% 82.4–86.1 84.5–88.3 1.62 pts — No