Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 10, 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 Atlanta Dream

TOR 95 – ATL 107

August 10, 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 TOR at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

TOR — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Vince Chambers
TOR 80.3–86.1 ATL 85.2–90.6 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.8–85.6 ATL 85.6–90.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–85.3 ATL 85.9–89.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–85.1 ATL 86.1–89.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.9 ATL 86.3–89.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-28.78
p-value
2.61e-79

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
TOR 80.5–86.4 ATL 86.1–91.1 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.0–85.9 ATL 86.3–90.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–85.6 ATL 86.5–90.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–85.4 ATL 86.6–89.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.7–85.2 ATL 86.6–89.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.2) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.5) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-26.90
p-value
4.98e-74

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 80.4–86.0 ATL 85.5–91.0 Overlap 0.43 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.9–85.5 ATL 86.0–90.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.2–85.2 ATL 86.4–90.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.4–85.0 ATL 86.5–89.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.6–84.8 ATL 86.6–89.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.9) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-28.43
p-value
2.07e-78

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
TOR 80.6–85.6 ATL 85.1–90.3 Overlap 0.45 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.0–85.2 ATL 85.5–89.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–84.9 ATL 85.8–89.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.7 ATL 86.0–89.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.7–84.6 ATL 86.2–89.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-31.11
p-value
1.02e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
TOR 80.3–86.1 ATL 84.8–89.6 Overlap 1.27 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 3.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.8–85.6 ATL 85.1–89.5 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.1–85.3 ATL 85.6–89.2 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–85.1 ATL 85.7–88.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.9 ATL 85.9–88.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-23.38
p-value
1.43e-63

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 80.6–85.4 ATL 85.3–90.6 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.0–84.8 ATL 85.5–89.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.6–84.8 ATL 85.6–88.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.8–84.6 ATL 85.8–88.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 82.0–84.3 ATL 85.9–88.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-23.60
p-value
3.44e-64

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 80.5–85.4 ATL 85.1–89.9 Overlap 0.3 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.9) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.9–85.0 ATL 85.5–89.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.9) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–84.7 ATL 85.7–89.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.9) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–84.5 ATL 85.9–89.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.9) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.4 ATL 86.1–88.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.9) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-32.07
p-value
2.44e-88

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
TOR 80.4–85.7 ATL 85.3–90.6 Overlap 0.39 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.0–85.3 ATL 85.6–89.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–85.1 ATL 85.8–89.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.9 ATL 86.2–89.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.8–84.4 ATL 86.3–88.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-24.60
p-value
3.94e-67

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 79.4–86.2 ATL 85.7–90.7 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 79.9–85.6 ATL 85.8–90.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.4–85.4 ATL 86.2–89.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–85.0 ATL 86.4–89.2 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.7–84.8 ATL 86.5–89.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-23.18
p-value
1.44e-61

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
TOR 80.6–85.8 ATL 85.9–90.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.5 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–85.4 ATL 85.9–89.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–85.2 ATL 86.3–89.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.9 ATL 86.5–89.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.7–84.8 ATL 86.5–88.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.8) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.2) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-28.63
p-value
6.71e-79

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
TOR 80.5–85.7 ATL 85.0–90.7 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.9–85.3 ATL 85.9–90.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.2–85.0 ATL 86.0–89.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.4–84.8 ATL 86.1–89.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.5–84.6 ATL 86.2–89.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.6) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.1) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-27.05
p-value
1.51e-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
TOR 79.9–85.4 ATL 84.8–92.0 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) — by 5.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.4–84.9 ATL 85.4–91.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) — by 5.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–84.7 ATL 85.7–91.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) — by 5.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.9–84.4 ATL 86.0–90.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) — by 5.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–84.3 ATL 86.3–90.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) — 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
-30.62
p-value
2.04e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–86.1 85.2–90.6 0.87 pts — No
90% 80.8–85.6 85.6–90.1 — pts — No
85% 81.1–85.3 85.9–89.9 — pts — No
80% 81.3–85.1 86.1–89.6 — pts — No
75% 81.5–84.9 86.3–89.5 — pts — No
Reg — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–86.4 86.1–91.1 0.31 pts — No
90% 81.0–85.9 86.3–90.8 — pts — No
85% 81.3–85.6 86.5–90.1 — pts — No
80% 81.5–85.4 86.6–89.9 — pts — No
75% 81.7–85.2 86.6–89.6 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–86.0 85.5–91.0 0.43 pts — No
90% 80.9–85.5 86.0–90.3 — pts — No
85% 81.2–85.2 86.4–90.0 — pts — No
80% 81.4–85.0 86.5–89.7 — pts — No
75% 81.6–84.8 86.6–89.1 — pts — No
Kevin — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–85.6 85.1–90.3 0.45 pts — No
90% 81.0–85.2 85.5–89.9 — pts — No
85% 81.3–84.9 85.8–89.6 — pts — No
80% 81.5–84.7 86.0–89.4 — pts — No
75% 81.7–84.6 86.2–89.3 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–86.1 84.8–89.6 1.27 pts — No
90% 80.8–85.6 85.1–89.5 0.51 pts — No
85% 81.1–85.3 85.6–89.2 — pts — No
80% 81.3–85.1 85.7–88.7 — pts — No
75% 81.5–84.9 85.9–88.5 — pts — No
Ice — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–85.4 85.3–90.6 0.18 pts — No
90% 81.0–84.8 85.5–89.7 — pts — No
85% 81.6–84.8 85.6–88.8 — pts — No
80% 81.8–84.6 85.8–88.7 — pts — No
75% 82.0–84.3 85.9–88.6 — pts — No
Jamal — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–85.4 85.1–89.9 0.3 pts — No
90% 80.9–85.0 85.5–89.5 — pts — No
85% 81.1–84.7 85.7–89.3 — pts — No
80% 81.3–84.5 85.9–89.1 — pts — No
75% 81.5–84.4 86.1–88.9 — pts — No
Jordan — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–85.7 85.3–90.6 0.39 pts — No
90% 81.0–85.3 85.6–89.8 — pts — No
85% 81.3–85.1 85.8–89.6 — pts — No
80% 81.5–84.9 86.2–89.4 — pts — No
75% 81.8–84.4 86.3–88.9 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.4–86.2 85.7–90.7 0.58 pts — No
90% 79.9–85.6 85.8–90.1 — pts — No
85% 81.4–85.4 86.2–89.4 — pts — No
80% 81.5–85.0 86.4–89.2 — pts — No
75% 81.7–84.8 86.5–89.0 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.6–85.8 85.9–90.0 — pts — No
90% 81.0–85.4 85.9–89.7 — pts — No
85% 81.3–85.2 86.3–89.4 — pts — No
80% 81.5–84.9 86.5–89.1 — pts — No
75% 81.7–84.8 86.5–88.9 — pts — No
Lexi — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–85.7 85.0–90.7 0.69 pts — No
90% 80.9–85.3 85.9–90.5 — pts — No
85% 81.2–85.0 86.0–89.8 — pts — No
80% 81.4–84.8 86.1–89.3 — pts — No
75% 81.5–84.6 86.2–89.1 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — TOR at ATL — Actual: TOR 95, ATL 107
Level TOR range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.9–85.4 84.8–92.0 0.6 pts — No
90% 80.4–84.9 85.4–91.5 — pts — No
85% 80.7–84.7 85.7–91.1 — pts — No
80% 80.9–84.4 86.0–90.8 — pts — No
75% 81.1–84.3 86.3–90.5 — pts — No