Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 7, 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
NFL
Log in Join

← Back to WNBA

Atlanta Dream at Washington Mystics

ATL 74 – WAS 79

August 7, 2026 · Final

Lexi

Best model for this game

Lexi
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 ATL at WAS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

ATL — one dot per model WAS — one dot per model Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Vince Chambers
ATL 84.7–91.0 WAS 80.3–86.3 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.5–90.2 WAS 80.7–85.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–89.8 WAS 80.8–84.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.8–89.3 WAS 81.2–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 86.0–89.0 WAS 81.3–83.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
25.13
p-value
4.71e-71

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 84.3–91.2 WAS 79.5–85.5 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 5.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 84.9–90.6 WAS 79.9–85.0 Overlap 0.1 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 5.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.2–90.3 WAS 80.3–84.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 5.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–90.0 WAS 80.5–84.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 5.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–89.8 WAS 80.7–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 5.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
28.99
p-value
3.82e-82

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 84.5–89.8 WAS 79.6–85.0 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.9–89.1 WAS 80.5–84.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.1–88.8 WAS 80.8–84.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.4–88.7 WAS 81.0–84.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.6–88.5 WAS 81.1–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
28.23
p-value
1.85e-80

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 84.5–90.7 WAS 79.8–84.9 Overlap 0.4 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 5.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.0–90.2 WAS 80.2–84.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 5.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–89.8 WAS 80.4–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 5.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–89.6 WAS 80.6–84.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 5.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–89.4 WAS 80.8–83.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.3) — by 5.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
32.59
p-value
2.25e-91

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 84.9–89.7 WAS 79.6–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.9) — by 5.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.1–89.3 WAS 79.9–83.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.9) — by 5.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–88.7 WAS 80.2–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.9) — by 5.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.4–88.6 WAS 80.4–83.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.9) — by 5.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.6–88.5 WAS 80.5–83.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 81.9) — by 5.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
31.61
p-value
1.05e-85

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 84.4–89.7 WAS 79.9–85.4 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 84.8–89.3 WAS 80.2–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 4.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.1–89.0 WAS 80.5–84.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 4.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–88.8 WAS 80.9–83.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 4.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–88.6 WAS 81.0–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 4.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
30.34
p-value
7.50e-86

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 85.0–91.6 WAS 80.1–85.8 Overlap 0.78 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.4–89.8 WAS 80.4–85.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–89.3 WAS 80.6–84.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–88.8 WAS 80.9–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.8–88.4 WAS 81.2–84.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
23.73
p-value
2.57e-66

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 85.1–90.4 WAS 80.3–85.3 Overlap 0.17 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.4–90.0 WAS 80.8–84.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–89.5 WAS 81.1–84.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–89.0 WAS 81.3–84.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–88.8 WAS 81.3–83.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
28.42
p-value
8.76e-80

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 84.7–91.2 WAS 79.5–85.3 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.1–90.3 WAS 80.0–84.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.5–90.0 WAS 80.3–84.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.6–89.6 WAS 80.5–84.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–89.2 WAS 80.7–84.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.4) — by 4.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
26.29
p-value
3.11e-73

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 84.6–90.2 WAS 80.1–85.7 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 85.3–89.5 WAS 80.6–84.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.6–89.3 WAS 81.0–84.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–88.9 WAS 81.2–83.8 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.9–88.6 WAS 81.3–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.5) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
28.67
p-value
2.87e-81

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 85.1–90.7 WAS 80.5–85.4 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.2–90.3 WAS 80.8–84.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.4–89.5 WAS 81.1–84.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.6–89.0 WAS 81.2–84.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–88.6 WAS 81.3–84.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.6) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
26.01
p-value
5.31e-73

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 84.8–91.3 WAS 78.9–84.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 5.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.3–90.8 WAS 80.3–84.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 5.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.7–90.4 WAS 80.7–83.9 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 5.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 85.9–90.2 WAS 80.9–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 5.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 86.2–89.9 WAS 81.0–83.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.2) — by 5.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
33.76
p-value
4.75e-95

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 WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–91.0 80.3–86.3 1.54 pts — No
90% 85.5–90.2 80.7–85.2 — pts — No
85% 85.7–89.8 80.8–84.4 — pts — No
80% 85.8–89.3 81.2–84.2 — pts — No
75% 86.0–89.0 81.3–83.9 — pts — No
Reg — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.3–91.2 79.5–85.5 1.13 pts — No
90% 84.9–90.6 79.9–85.0 0.1 pts — No
85% 85.2–90.3 80.3–84.7 — pts — No
80% 85.5–90.0 80.5–84.4 — pts — No
75% 85.7–89.8 80.7–84.2 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–89.8 79.6–85.0 0.49 pts — No
90% 84.9–89.1 80.5–84.8 — pts — No
85% 85.1–88.8 80.8–84.6 — pts — No
80% 85.4–88.7 81.0–84.1 — pts — No
75% 85.6–88.5 81.1–83.7 — pts — No
Kevin — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–90.7 79.8–84.9 0.4 pts — No
90% 85.0–90.2 80.2–84.4 — pts — No
85% 85.3–89.8 80.4–84.2 — pts — No
80% 85.5–89.6 80.6–84.0 — pts — No
75% 85.7–89.4 80.8–83.8 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–89.7 79.6–84.2 — pts — No
90% 85.1–89.3 79.9–83.8 — pts — No
85% 85.3–88.7 80.2–83.6 — pts — No
80% 85.4–88.6 80.4–83.4 — pts — No
75% 85.6–88.5 80.5–83.2 — pts — No
Ice — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–89.7 79.9–85.4 0.99 pts — No
90% 84.8–89.3 80.2–84.2 — pts — No
85% 85.1–89.0 80.5–84.1 — pts — No
80% 85.3–88.8 80.9–83.9 — pts — No
75% 85.5–88.6 81.0–83.6 — pts — No
Jamal — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–91.6 80.1–85.8 0.78 pts — No
90% 85.4–89.8 80.4–85.3 — pts — No
85% 85.5–89.3 80.6–84.8 — pts — No
80% 85.7–88.8 80.9–84.2 — pts — No
75% 85.8–88.4 81.2–84.1 — pts — No
Jordan — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.1–90.4 80.3–85.3 0.17 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.0 80.8–84.7 — pts — No
85% 85.5–89.5 81.1–84.3 — pts — No
80% 85.7–89.0 81.3–84.1 — pts — No
75% 85.7–88.8 81.3–83.7 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.7–91.2 79.5–85.3 0.65 pts — No
90% 85.1–90.3 80.0–84.9 — pts — No
85% 85.5–90.0 80.3–84.6 — pts — No
80% 85.6–89.6 80.5–84.3 — pts — No
75% 85.7–89.2 80.7–84.1 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.6–90.2 80.1–85.7 1.04 pts — No
90% 85.3–89.5 80.6–84.8 — pts — No
85% 85.6–89.3 81.0–84.3 — pts — No
80% 85.7–88.9 81.2–83.8 — pts — No
75% 85.9–88.6 81.3–83.6 — pts — No
Lexi — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.1–90.7 80.5–85.4 0.31 pts — No
90% 85.2–90.3 80.8–84.9 — pts — No
85% 85.4–89.5 81.1–84.7 — pts — No
80% 85.6–89.0 81.2–84.5 — pts — No
75% 85.7–88.6 81.3–84.2 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — ATL at WAS — Actual: ATL 74, WAS 79
Level ATL range WAS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–91.3 78.9–84.7 — pts — No
90% 85.3–90.8 80.3–84.3 — pts — No
85% 85.7–90.4 80.7–83.9 — pts — No
80% 85.9–90.2 80.9–83.6 — pts — No
75% 86.2–89.9 81.0–83.5 — pts — No