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

Toronto Tempo at Portland Fire

TOR 83 – POR 97

August 6, 2026 · Final

Vince Chambers

Best model for this game

Vince Chambers
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 TOR at POR

All 12 models’ predicted scores

TOR — one dot per model POR — one dot per model Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Vince Chambers
TOR 79.8–85.8 POR 82.8–88.5 Overlap 3.06 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.3–85.3 POR 83.2–88.1 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.6–85.0 POR 83.5–87.8 Overlap 1.5 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.9–84.8 POR 83.8–87.5 Overlap 1.02 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.1–84.6 POR 84.0–87.4 Overlap 0.63 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.8) — by 2.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-12.29
p-value
7.43e-23

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
TOR 81.0–86.9 POR 82.9–89.1 Overlap 4.02 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.4) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–86.1 POR 83.4–88.6 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.4) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.4–85.6 POR 83.7–88.3 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.4) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.6–85.4 POR 84.0–88.0 Overlap 1.39 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.4) — by 2.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.9–85.1 POR 84.2–87.8 Overlap 0.91 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.4) — by 2.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-8.98
p-value
9.04e-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.

Dr. Wallace
TOR 79.2–86.8 POR 82.4–88.0 Overlap 4.43 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 79.9–86.2 POR 82.9–87.5 Overlap 3.38 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.3–85.8 POR 83.1–87.2 Overlap 2.69 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.6–85.5 POR 83.4–87.0 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.8–85.3 POR 83.6–86.8 Overlap 1.72 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.0) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-8.23
p-value
4.57e-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
TOR 80.3–87.5 POR 81.6–88.8 Overlap 5.91 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.7–87.0 POR 82.3–87.3 Overlap 4.65 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–86.9 POR 82.6–86.8 Overlap 4.17 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.8–86.7 POR 83.1–86.3 Overlap 3.19 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.9–86.4 POR 83.4–86.0 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.8) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-2.98
p-value
3.51e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
TOR 80.0–89.0 POR 80.4–88.8 Overlap 8.42 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.7–88.3 POR 81.1–88.1 Overlap 7.06 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–87.8 POR 81.5–87.7 Overlap 6.18 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.6–87.5 POR 81.9–87.4 Overlap 5.5 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.9–87.2 POR 82.1–87.1 Overlap 4.94 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-0.27
p-value
7.85e-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
TOR 79.4–88.4 POR 81.4–88.3 Overlap 6.98 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.2–87.6 POR 81.9–87.8 Overlap 5.72 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.6–87.2 POR 82.3–87.4 Overlap 4.89 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–86.8 POR 82.6–87.1 Overlap 4.25 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–86.5 POR 82.8–86.9 Overlap 3.72 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-3.04
p-value
2.94e-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.

Jamal
TOR 79.4–88.4 POR 81.2–88.0 Overlap 6.81 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.1–87.7 POR 81.8–87.5 Overlap 5.72 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.6–87.2 POR 82.1–87.1 Overlap 5.0 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–86.8 POR 82.4–86.9 Overlap 4.45 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–86.5 POR 82.6–86.6 Overlap 3.92 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-2.33
p-value
2.17e-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.

Jordan Tol Warning
TOR 79.5–88.2 POR 81.1–89.0 Overlap 7.05 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–87.3 POR 81.8–88.4 Overlap 5.52 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.6–87.1 POR 82.2–88.0 Overlap 4.9 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.9–86.9 POR 82.5–87.6 Overlap 4.39 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.1–86.7 POR 82.8–87.4 Overlap 3.93 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by 1.0 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-2.88
p-value
4.76e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
TOR 79.4–88.9 POR 80.6–88.4 Overlap 7.79 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.2–88.2 POR 81.3–87.8 Overlap 6.54 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.7–87.7 POR 81.7–87.4 Overlap 5.72 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–87.3 POR 82.0–87.1 Overlap 5.09 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.4–87.0 POR 82.2–86.8 Overlap 4.57 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-1.05
p-value
2.95e-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.

Maya Jefferson Tol Warning
TOR 79.3–89.0 POR 82.2–88.4 Overlap 6.28 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.1–88.2 POR 82.2–86.8 Overlap 4.62 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.6–87.7 POR 82.6–86.7 Overlap 4.09 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–87.3 POR 82.8–86.5 Overlap 3.69 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–87.0 POR 83.0–86.4 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-2.40
p-value
1.80e-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.

Lexi Tol Warning
TOR 79.3–88.6 POR 81.6–87.7 Overlap 6.11 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.0–87.9 POR 82.0–87.3 Overlap 5.32 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.5–87.4 POR 82.5–86.9 Overlap 4.36 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.9–87.0 POR 82.7–86.4 Overlap 3.65 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–86.7 POR 83.2–86.2 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 84.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-2.44
p-value
1.61e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
TOR 79.4–87.6 POR 82.3–88.2 Overlap 5.38 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.1–87.0 POR 82.7–87.7 Overlap 4.24 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.5–86.5 POR 83.0–87.4 Overlap 3.5 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.8–86.2 POR 83.3–87.2 Overlap 2.93 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.1–85.9 POR 83.5–87.0 Overlap 2.46 pts Actual: TOR 83, POR 97

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Portland Fire (avg. 85.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-6.05
p-value
2.12e-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 — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.8–85.8 82.8–88.5 3.06 pts — No
90% 80.3–85.3 83.2–88.1 2.11 pts — No
85% 80.6–85.0 83.5–87.8 1.5 pts — No
80% 80.9–84.8 83.8–87.5 1.02 pts — No
75% 81.1–84.6 84.0–87.4 0.63 pts — No
Reg — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.9 82.9–89.1 4.02 pts Yes No
90% 81.2–86.1 83.4–88.6 2.67 pts Yes No
85% 81.4–85.6 83.7–88.3 1.81 pts Yes No
80% 81.6–85.4 84.0–88.0 1.39 pts Yes No
75% 81.9–85.1 84.2–87.8 0.91 pts Yes No
Dr. Wallace — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.2–86.8 82.4–88.0 4.43 pts — No
90% 79.9–86.2 82.9–87.5 3.38 pts — No
85% 80.3–85.8 83.1–87.2 2.69 pts — No
80% 80.6–85.5 83.4–87.0 2.16 pts — No
75% 80.8–85.3 83.6–86.8 1.72 pts — No
Kevin — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–87.5 81.6–88.8 5.91 pts Yes No
90% 80.7–87.0 82.3–87.3 4.65 pts Yes No
85% 81.3–86.9 82.6–86.8 4.17 pts Yes No
80% 81.8–86.7 83.1–86.3 3.19 pts Yes No
75% 81.9–86.4 83.4–86.0 2.59 pts Yes No
Dr. Lila Shah — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–89.0 80.4–88.8 8.42 pts — No
90% 80.7–88.3 81.1–88.1 7.06 pts — No
85% 81.2–87.8 81.5–87.7 6.18 pts — No
80% 81.6–87.5 81.9–87.4 5.5 pts — No
75% 81.9–87.2 82.1–87.1 4.94 pts — No
Ice — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.4–88.4 81.4–88.3 6.98 pts — No
90% 80.2–87.6 81.9–87.8 5.72 pts — No
85% 80.6–87.2 82.3–87.4 4.89 pts — No
80% 81.0–86.8 82.6–87.1 4.25 pts — No
75% 81.3–86.5 82.8–86.9 3.72 pts — No
Jamal — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.4–88.4 81.2–88.0 6.81 pts — No
90% 80.1–87.7 81.8–87.5 5.72 pts — No
85% 80.6–87.2 82.1–87.1 5.0 pts — No
80% 81.0–86.8 82.4–86.9 4.45 pts — No
75% 81.3–86.5 82.6–86.6 3.92 pts — No
Jordan — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.5–88.2 81.1–89.0 7.05 pts Yes No
90% 81.2–87.3 81.8–88.4 5.52 pts Yes No
85% 81.6–87.1 82.2–88.0 4.9 pts Yes No
80% 81.9–86.9 82.5–87.6 4.39 pts Yes No
75% 82.1–86.7 82.8–87.4 3.93 pts Yes No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.4–88.9 80.6–88.4 7.79 pts — No
90% 80.2–88.2 81.3–87.8 6.54 pts — No
85% 80.7–87.7 81.7–87.4 5.72 pts — No
80% 81.0–87.3 82.0–87.1 5.09 pts — No
75% 81.4–87.0 82.2–86.8 4.57 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.3–89.0 82.2–88.4 6.28 pts Yes No
90% 80.1–88.2 82.2–86.8 4.62 pts Yes No
85% 80.6–87.7 82.6–86.7 4.09 pts Yes No
80% 81.0–87.3 82.8–86.5 3.69 pts Yes No
75% 81.3–87.0 83.0–86.4 3.44 pts Yes No
Lexi — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.3–88.6 81.6–87.7 6.11 pts Yes No
90% 80.0–87.9 82.0–87.3 5.32 pts Yes No
85% 80.5–87.4 82.5–86.9 4.36 pts Yes No
80% 80.9–87.0 82.7–86.4 3.65 pts Yes No
75% 81.2–86.7 83.2–86.2 2.99 pts Yes No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — TOR at POR — Actual: TOR 83, POR 97
Level TOR range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.4–87.6 82.3–88.2 5.38 pts — No
90% 80.1–87.0 82.7–87.7 4.24 pts — No
85% 80.5–86.5 83.0–87.4 3.5 pts — No
80% 80.8–86.2 83.3–87.2 2.93 pts — No
75% 81.1–85.9 83.5–87.0 2.46 pts — No