Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 6, 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

Los Angeles Sparks at Minnesota Lynx

LAS 89 – MIN 82

August 6, 2026 · Final

Reg

Best model for this game

Reg
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 LAS at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

LAS — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
LAS 84.9–92.0 MIN 87.0–92.5 Overlap 5.05 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 87.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 85.6–91.2 MIN 87.4–92.1 Overlap 3.71 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 87.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 85.7–90.0 MIN 87.7–91.8 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 87.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.8–89.8 MIN 88.0–91.6 Overlap 1.89 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 87.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.9–89.4 MIN 88.1–91.4 Overlap 1.31 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 87.7) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-7.56
p-value
1.74e-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.

Reg Tol Warning
LAS 85.2–93.0 MIN 86.1–94.0 Overlap 6.86 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 88.2) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 85.4–91.8 MIN 86.7–93.3 Overlap 5.03 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 88.2) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 85.9–91.5 MIN 87.2–92.9 Overlap 4.35 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 88.2) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 86.2–91.4 MIN 87.5–92.6 Overlap 3.88 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 88.2) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 86.3–90.9 MIN 87.7–92.3 Overlap 3.22 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 88.2) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-5.32
p-value
5.27e-07

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

Dr. Wallace Tol Warning
LAS 84.4–91.7 MIN 86.0–92.7 Overlap 5.7 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.6–90.2 MIN 86.5–92.1 Overlap 3.7 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.8–89.8 MIN 86.9–91.8 Overlap 2.93 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.0–88.3 MIN 87.1–91.5 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.0–88.1 MIN 87.4–91.3 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.3) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-8.44
p-value
1.15e-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.

Kevin Tol Warning
LAS 84.8–91.4 MIN 87.1–94.4 Overlap 4.26 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 85.0–89.3 MIN 87.3–94.0 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.1–89.2 MIN 87.4–93.1 Overlap 1.84 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.3–88.4 MIN 87.4–91.9 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

LAS 85.3–88.1 MIN 87.5–91.2 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-7.90
p-value
1.72e-12

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
LAS 84.3–90.7 MIN 86.6–92.8 Overlap 4.11 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.5–90.1 MIN 86.7–92.7 Overlap 3.41 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.7–89.7 MIN 87.1–92.1 Overlap 2.56 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–89.6 MIN 87.2–91.4 Overlap 2.4 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.9–89.5 MIN 87.3–90.9 Overlap 2.22 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.8) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-6.22
p-value
8.12e-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.

Ice Tol Warning
LAS 84.5–88.5 MIN 85.9–92.2 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.3) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.7–88.1 MIN 86.3–91.6 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.3) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–87.8 MIN 86.7–91.3 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.3) — by 2.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.9–87.7 MIN 86.9–91.0 Overlap 0.79 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.3) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

LAS 85.1–87.5 MIN 87.1–90.8 Overlap 0.39 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.3) — by 2.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-11.42
p-value
1.03e-20

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 Tol Warning
LAS 84.2–90.2 MIN 85.8–92.4 Overlap 4.46 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.4–89.3 MIN 86.3–91.9 Overlap 3.04 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.6–89.2 MIN 86.6–91.5 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–88.8 MIN 86.9–91.2 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.0–88.3 MIN 87.1–91.0 Overlap 1.16 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-8.99
p-value
5.22e-15

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 Tol Warning
LAS 83.1–90.4 MIN 87.2–92.2 Overlap 3.21 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.7–89.9 MIN 87.6–91.5 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.1–89.5 MIN 87.6–91.4 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.4–89.2 MIN 87.7–90.7 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.6–88.9 MIN 87.9–90.5 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.2) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.8) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-9.17
p-value
2.35e-15

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
LAS 83.1–89.6 MIN 85.0–92.1 Overlap 4.6 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.6–89.1 MIN 85.6–91.5 Overlap 3.51 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.0–88.7 MIN 85.9–91.1 Overlap 2.8 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.2–88.5 MIN 86.2–90.8 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.5–88.3 MIN 86.4–90.6 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.4) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-8.20
p-value
3.48e-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.

Maya Jefferson Tol Warning
LAS 84.2–90.5 MIN 85.3–92.7 Overlap 5.19 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.5–90.0 MIN 85.9–92.1 Overlap 4.05 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.7–89.4 MIN 86.3–91.7 Overlap 3.07 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.8–88.8 MIN 86.6–91.4 Overlap 2.23 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–88.6 MIN 86.9–91.2 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.6) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-8.25
p-value
2.63e-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 Tol Warning
LAS 84.4–90.4 MIN 86.4–93.0 Overlap 4.01 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.7–88.8 MIN 86.7–92.2 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–88.5 MIN 86.7–91.8 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.8–88.1 MIN 87.0–91.2 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 85.0–87.9 MIN 87.2–90.7 Overlap 0.68 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.5) — by 2.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-7.83
p-value
2.37e-12

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
LAS 82.9–90.5 MIN 84.7–95.1 Overlap 5.86 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.7) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.5–89.9 MIN 85.5–94.3 Overlap 4.41 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.7) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 83.9–89.5 MIN 86.1–93.8 Overlap 3.46 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.7) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

LAS 84.2–89.2 MIN 86.5–93.3 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.7) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

LAS 84.5–89.0 MIN 86.8–93.0 Overlap 2.13 pts Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Los Angeles Sparks (avg. 86.7) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-8.89
p-value
1.56e-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 — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–92.0 87.0–92.5 5.05 pts Yes No
90% 85.6–91.2 87.4–92.1 3.71 pts Yes No
85% 85.7–90.0 87.7–91.8 2.24 pts Yes No
80% 85.8–89.8 88.0–91.6 1.89 pts Yes No
75% 85.9–89.4 88.1–91.4 1.31 pts Yes No
Reg — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.2–93.0 86.1–94.0 6.86 pts Yes No
90% 85.4–91.8 86.7–93.3 5.03 pts Yes No
85% 85.9–91.5 87.2–92.9 4.35 pts Yes No
80% 86.2–91.4 87.5–92.6 3.88 pts Yes No
75% 86.3–90.9 87.7–92.3 3.22 pts Yes No
Dr. Wallace — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–91.7 86.0–92.7 5.7 pts Yes No
90% 84.6–90.2 86.5–92.1 3.7 pts Yes No
85% 84.8–89.8 86.9–91.8 2.93 pts Yes No
80% 85.0–88.3 87.1–91.5 1.13 pts Yes No
75% 85.0–88.1 87.4–91.3 0.73 pts Yes No
Kevin — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–91.4 87.1–94.4 4.26 pts Yes No
90% 85.0–89.3 87.3–94.0 2.0 pts Yes No
85% 85.1–89.2 87.4–93.1 1.84 pts Yes No
80% 85.3–88.4 87.4–91.9 0.95 pts Yes No
75% 85.3–88.1 87.5–91.2 0.65 pts Yes No
Dr. Lila Shah — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.3–90.7 86.6–92.8 4.11 pts Yes No
90% 84.5–90.1 86.7–92.7 3.41 pts Yes No
85% 84.7–89.7 87.1–92.1 2.56 pts Yes No
80% 84.8–89.6 87.2–91.4 2.4 pts Yes No
75% 84.9–89.5 87.3–90.9 2.22 pts Yes No
Ice — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–88.5 85.9–92.2 2.63 pts Yes No
90% 84.7–88.1 86.3–91.6 1.8 pts Yes No
85% 84.8–87.8 86.7–91.3 1.14 pts Yes No
80% 84.9–87.7 86.9–91.0 0.79 pts Yes No
75% 85.1–87.5 87.1–90.8 0.39 pts Yes No
Jamal — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–90.2 85.8–92.4 4.46 pts Yes No
90% 84.4–89.3 86.3–91.9 3.04 pts Yes No
85% 84.6–89.2 86.6–91.5 2.59 pts Yes No
80% 84.8–88.8 86.9–91.2 1.91 pts Yes No
75% 85.0–88.3 87.1–91.0 1.16 pts Yes No
Jordan — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–90.4 87.2–92.2 3.21 pts Yes No
90% 83.7–89.9 87.6–91.5 2.27 pts Yes No
85% 84.1–89.5 87.6–91.4 1.83 pts Yes No
80% 84.4–89.2 87.7–90.7 1.48 pts Yes No
75% 84.6–88.9 87.9–90.5 1.03 pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–89.6 85.0–92.1 4.6 pts — No
90% 83.6–89.1 85.6–91.5 3.51 pts — No
85% 84.0–88.7 85.9–91.1 2.8 pts — No
80% 84.2–88.5 86.2–90.8 2.26 pts — No
75% 84.5–88.3 86.4–90.6 1.8 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.2–90.5 85.3–92.7 5.19 pts Yes No
90% 84.5–90.0 85.9–92.1 4.05 pts Yes No
85% 84.7–89.4 86.3–91.7 3.07 pts Yes No
80% 84.8–88.8 86.6–91.4 2.23 pts Yes No
75% 84.8–88.6 86.9–91.2 1.71 pts Yes No
Lexi — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–90.4 86.4–93.0 4.01 pts Yes No
90% 84.7–88.8 86.7–92.2 2.15 pts Yes No
85% 84.8–88.5 86.7–91.8 1.76 pts Yes No
80% 84.8–88.1 87.0–91.2 1.14 pts Yes No
75% 85.0–87.9 87.2–90.7 0.68 pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — LAS at MIN — Actual: LAS 89, MIN 82
Level LAS range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.9–90.5 84.7–95.1 5.86 pts — No
90% 83.5–89.9 85.5–94.3 4.41 pts — No
85% 83.9–89.5 86.1–93.8 3.46 pts — No
80% 84.2–89.2 86.5–93.3 2.73 pts — No
75% 84.5–89.0 86.8–93.0 2.13 pts — No