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
Log in Join

← Back to WNBA

Phoenix Mercury at Connecticut Sun

PHX 72 – CON 75

August 7, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
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 CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

PHX — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Vince Chambers
PHX 80.5–86.4 CON 82.6–88.2 Overlap 3.83 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.0–85.7 CON 82.9–88.0 Overlap 2.8 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.4–85.3 CON 83.1–87.5 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.7–85.1 CON 83.2–87.2 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–84.8 CON 83.3–86.9 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-8.03
p-value
3.67e-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.

Reg
PHX 80.7–86.7 CON 82.3–89.2 Overlap 4.44 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.1–86.3 CON 82.7–87.9 Overlap 3.57 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.5–85.9 CON 82.9–87.6 Overlap 3.02 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.7–85.7 CON 83.1–87.2 Overlap 2.58 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–85.5 CON 83.2–86.8 Overlap 2.32 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.7) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-6.17
p-value
2.85e-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.

Dr. Wallace
PHX 80.5–86.1 CON 82.2–88.7 Overlap 3.91 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 80.9–85.7 CON 82.7–88.4 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.2–85.4 CON 83.0–88.0 Overlap 2.35 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–85.1 CON 83.1–87.4 Overlap 2.04 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.7–85.0 CON 83.2–86.7 Overlap 1.74 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-8.41
p-value
4.11e-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.

Kevin
PHX 81.4–86.1 CON 82.3–88.6 Overlap 3.77 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.5–85.7 CON 82.8–87.7 Overlap 2.89 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–85.1 CON 82.8–87.5 Overlap 2.3 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.1–84.9 CON 82.9–87.4 Overlap 1.98 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.1–84.7 CON 83.0–86.8 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-7.93
p-value
1.06e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
PHX 80.0–86.3 CON 82.0–86.9 Overlap 4.24 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 80.5–85.8 CON 82.3–86.3 Overlap 3.48 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 80.9–85.4 CON 82.5–85.8 Overlap 2.98 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.1–85.2 CON 82.6–85.7 Overlap 2.62 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.3–85.0 CON 82.7–85.4 Overlap 2.31 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-4.68
p-value
4.59e-06

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

Ice
PHX 81.4–85.7 CON 82.2–87.7 Overlap 3.53 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.5–85.1 CON 82.5–87.1 Overlap 2.59 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.6–84.8 CON 83.0–87.0 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–84.6 CON 83.1–86.7 Overlap 1.47 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–84.5 CON 83.2–86.3 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.6) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-8.04
p-value
3.79e-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.

Jamal
PHX 81.0–86.3 CON 82.4–90.6 Overlap 3.85 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.4–85.3 CON 82.6–89.4 Overlap 2.7 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.6–84.9 CON 82.7–87.6 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–84.7 CON 82.7–87.3 Overlap 1.97 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.0–84.6 CON 83.0–86.9 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-7.34
p-value
3.80e-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.

Jordan
PHX 80.3–86.1 CON 82.4–89.0 Overlap 3.64 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 80.8–85.6 CON 82.6–88.2 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.1–85.3 CON 82.8–87.8 Overlap 2.53 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.3–85.1 CON 82.8–87.3 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–84.9 CON 83.1–86.8 Overlap 1.78 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-7.77
p-value
2.58e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
PHX 80.6–86.3 CON 82.5–88.7 Overlap 3.8 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.3–85.7 CON 82.9–88.3 Overlap 2.82 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–85.5 CON 83.0–88.0 Overlap 2.46 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–85.3 CON 83.2–87.4 Overlap 2.11 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.9–85.1 CON 83.3–87.2 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.9) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.4) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-7.64
p-value
4.93e-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
PHX 81.0–85.6 CON 82.4–89.2 Overlap 3.23 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.5–85.2 CON 82.7–87.9 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.7–84.9 CON 82.7–87.5 Overlap 2.14 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–84.5 CON 83.0–87.4 Overlap 1.44 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 82.0–84.4 CON 83.1–86.7 Overlap 1.3 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.7) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.2) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-8.19
p-value
1.82e-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.

Lexi
PHX 80.7–85.9 CON 82.5–88.7 Overlap 3.37 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 81.1–85.5 CON 82.7–88.2 Overlap 2.82 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.4–85.2 CON 82.9–87.6 Overlap 2.29 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.6–85.0 CON 83.0–87.0 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.8–84.8 CON 83.1–86.7 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 84.8) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.3) — by 1.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-8.18
p-value
2.06e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
PHX 80.3–86.0 CON 82.9–89.5 Overlap 3.06 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 85.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

PHX 80.7–85.5 CON 83.3–88.8 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 85.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.0–85.2 CON 83.6–87.8 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 85.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.3–85.0 CON 83.6–87.5 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 85.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

PHX 81.5–84.8 CON 83.8–87.2 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: PHX 72, CON 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 85.5) over Phoenix Mercury (avg. 83.1) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-12.47
p-value
7.59e-28

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 CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–86.4 82.6–88.2 3.83 pts — No
90% 81.0–85.7 82.9–88.0 2.8 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.3 83.1–87.5 2.24 pts — No
80% 81.7–85.1 83.2–87.2 1.96 pts — No
75% 81.8–84.8 83.3–86.9 1.41 pts — No
Reg — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–86.7 82.3–89.2 4.44 pts — No
90% 81.1–86.3 82.7–87.9 3.57 pts — No
85% 81.5–85.9 82.9–87.6 3.02 pts — No
80% 81.7–85.7 83.1–87.2 2.58 pts — No
75% 81.9–85.5 83.2–86.8 2.32 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–86.1 82.2–88.7 3.91 pts — No
90% 80.9–85.7 82.7–88.4 2.92 pts — No
85% 81.2–85.4 83.0–88.0 2.35 pts — No
80% 81.5–85.1 83.1–87.4 2.04 pts — No
75% 81.7–85.0 83.2–86.7 1.74 pts — No
Kevin — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–86.1 82.3–88.6 3.77 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.7 82.8–87.7 2.89 pts — No
85% 81.8–85.1 82.8–87.5 2.3 pts — No
80% 82.1–84.9 82.9–87.4 1.98 pts — No
75% 82.1–84.7 83.0–86.8 1.69 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–86.3 82.0–86.9 4.24 pts — No
90% 80.5–85.8 82.3–86.3 3.48 pts — No
85% 80.9–85.4 82.5–85.8 2.98 pts — No
80% 81.1–85.2 82.6–85.7 2.62 pts — No
75% 81.3–85.0 82.7–85.4 2.31 pts — No
Ice — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.4–85.7 82.2–87.7 3.53 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.1 82.5–87.1 2.59 pts — No
85% 81.6–84.8 83.0–87.0 1.82 pts — No
80% 81.8–84.6 83.1–86.7 1.47 pts — No
75% 81.9–84.5 83.2–86.3 1.22 pts — No
Jamal — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–86.3 82.4–90.6 3.85 pts — No
90% 81.4–85.3 82.6–89.4 2.7 pts — No
85% 81.6–84.9 82.7–87.6 2.16 pts — No
80% 81.9–84.7 82.7–87.3 1.97 pts — No
75% 82.0–84.6 83.0–86.9 1.62 pts — No
Jordan — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–86.1 82.4–89.0 3.64 pts — No
90% 80.8–85.6 82.6–88.2 2.95 pts — No
85% 81.1–85.3 82.8–87.8 2.53 pts — No
80% 81.3–85.1 82.8–87.3 2.24 pts — No
75% 81.5–84.9 83.1–86.8 1.78 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–86.3 82.5–88.7 3.8 pts — No
90% 81.3–85.7 82.9–88.3 2.82 pts — No
85% 81.5–85.5 83.0–88.0 2.46 pts — No
80% 81.8–85.3 83.2–87.4 2.11 pts — No
75% 81.9–85.1 83.3–87.2 1.82 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.0–85.6 82.4–89.2 3.23 pts — No
90% 81.5–85.2 82.7–87.9 2.55 pts — No
85% 81.7–84.9 82.7–87.5 2.14 pts — No
80% 81.8–84.5 83.0–87.4 1.44 pts — No
75% 82.0–84.4 83.1–86.7 1.3 pts — No
Lexi — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.7–85.9 82.5–88.7 3.37 pts — No
90% 81.1–85.5 82.7–88.2 2.82 pts — No
85% 81.4–85.2 82.9–87.6 2.29 pts — No
80% 81.6–85.0 83.0–87.0 2.0 pts — No
75% 81.8–84.8 83.1–86.7 1.73 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — PHX at CON — Actual: PHX 72, CON 75
Level PHX range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–86.0 82.9–89.5 3.06 pts — No
90% 80.7–85.5 83.3–88.8 2.26 pts — No
85% 81.0–85.2 83.6–87.8 1.68 pts — No
80% 81.3–85.0 83.6–87.5 1.41 pts — No
75% 81.5–84.8 83.8–87.2 1.06 pts — No