Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 12, 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

Chicago Sky at Golden State Valkyries

CHI 71 – GS 91

August 12, 2026 · Final

Dr. Lila Shah

Best model for this game

Dr. Lila Shah
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 CHI at GS

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model GS — one dot per model Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Vince Chambers
CHI 85.9–91.7 GS 79.1–84.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 7.1 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.3–91.2 GS 79.5–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 7.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.6–90.9 GS 79.8–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 7.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.9–90.7 GS 80.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 7.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 87.1–90.5 GS 80.2–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 7.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
51.55
p-value
5.94e-158

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
CHI 84.0–93.0 GS 78.6–85.1 Overlap 1.14 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 89.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 7.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 86.3–92.5 GS 79.1–84.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 89.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 7.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.8–91.8 GS 79.5–84.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 89.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 7.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 87.3–91.4 GS 79.7–84.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 89.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 7.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 87.6–91.3 GS 80.0–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 89.2) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 7.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
38.40
p-value
4.42e-120

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
CHI 83.9–92.6 GS 79.0–84.4 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 85.4–91.9 GS 79.5–83.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.2–91.3 GS 79.7–83.7 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.6–90.8 GS 79.9–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.8–90.6 GS 80.1–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
37.63
p-value
3.03e-110

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
CHI 83.2–92.5 GS 79.5–84.2 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.7–91.7 GS 80.0–83.9 Overlap 0.17 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 86.5–91.4 GS 80.2–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 87.0–91.2 GS 80.4–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 87.2–90.9 GS 80.5–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) — by 6.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
36.81
p-value
3.98e-105

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
CHI 82.8–90.9 GS 79.1–84.7 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 5.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.1–90.4 GS 79.6–84.3 Overlap 1.19 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 5.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 84.1–89.7 GS 79.9–84.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 5.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.4–89.5 GS 80.1–83.7 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 5.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.0–89.4 GS 80.3–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.9) — by 5.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
29.44
p-value
1.54e-87

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
CHI 82.4–91.5 GS 78.7–84.6 Overlap 2.17 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.2–90.9 GS 79.5–84.0 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.3–90.5 GS 79.8–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.6–90.0 GS 80.0–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.1–89.8 GS 80.1–82.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
33.25
p-value
7.96e-100

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
CHI 82.5–91.7 GS 79.1–84.2 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.4–91.1 GS 79.5–83.7 Overlap 0.32 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.3–90.7 GS 79.8–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.8–90.2 GS 80.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.2–90.0 GS 80.1–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.9) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
34.01
p-value
4.75e-98

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
CHI 83.3–92.5 GS 79.0–84.6 Overlap 1.33 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.8) — by 6.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 84.1–91.9 GS 79.5–84.2 Overlap 0.1 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.8) — by 6.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.4–91.3 GS 79.8–83.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.8) — by 6.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.2–90.7 GS 80.0–83.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.8) — by 6.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.3–90.6 GS 80.2–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.8) — by 6.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
32.27
p-value
1.39e-93

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
CHI 82.5–92.1 GS 79.3–84.2 Overlap 1.7 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.4–91.2 GS 79.9–83.8 Overlap 0.4 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.0–90.9 GS 80.0–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.5–90.6 GS 80.2–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.0–90.4 GS 80.2–82.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) — by 6.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
32.45
p-value
3.96e-93

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
CHI 83.1–91.5 GS 79.0–84.3 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.4–91.2 GS 79.4–83.9 Overlap 0.43 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.1–90.7 GS 79.7–83.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.2–90.3 GS 79.9–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.1–90.1 GS 80.1–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
34.71
p-value
3.54e-101

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
CHI 82.5–92.7 GS 79.6–83.9 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.4–91.3 GS 79.9–83.6 Overlap 0.26 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.3–90.4 GS 80.1–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.4–90.0 GS 80.3–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.7–89.9 GS 80.4–82.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.0) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) — by 6.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
32.35
p-value
1.93e-90

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
CHI 83.0–91.9 GS 80.0–85.0 Overlap 2.03 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.5) — by 5.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 84.2–91.2 GS 80.4–84.6 Overlap 0.44 pts Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.5) — by 5.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.8–90.8 GS 80.7–84.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.5) — by 5.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.4–90.3 GS 80.9–84.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.5) — by 5.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.0–90.1 GS 81.1–84.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 71, GS 91

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 88.1) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.5) — by 5.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
29.44
p-value
1.91e-83

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 — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–91.7 79.1–84.2 — pts — No
90% 86.3–91.2 79.5–83.8 — pts — No
85% 86.6–90.9 79.8–83.5 — pts — No
80% 86.9–90.7 80.0–83.3 — pts — No
75% 87.1–90.5 80.2–83.1 — pts — No
Reg — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–93.0 78.6–85.1 1.14 pts — No
90% 86.3–92.5 79.1–84.6 — pts — No
85% 86.8–91.8 79.5–84.3 — pts — No
80% 87.3–91.4 79.7–84.0 — pts — No
75% 87.6–91.3 80.0–83.8 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.9–92.6 79.0–84.4 0.49 pts — No
90% 85.4–91.9 79.5–83.9 — pts — No
85% 86.2–91.3 79.7–83.7 — pts — No
80% 86.6–90.8 79.9–83.4 — pts — No
75% 86.8–90.6 80.1–83.3 — pts — No
Kevin — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–92.5 79.5–84.2 1.03 pts — No
90% 83.7–91.7 80.0–83.9 0.17 pts — No
85% 86.5–91.4 80.2–83.4 — pts — No
80% 87.0–91.2 80.4–83.2 — pts — No
75% 87.2–90.9 80.5–83.0 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.8–90.9 79.1–84.7 1.96 pts — No
90% 83.1–90.4 79.6–84.3 1.19 pts — No
85% 84.1–89.7 79.9–84.0 — pts — No
80% 85.4–89.5 80.1–83.7 — pts — No
75% 86.0–89.4 80.3–83.5 — pts — No
Ice — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–91.5 78.7–84.6 2.17 pts — No
90% 83.2–90.9 79.5–84.0 0.73 pts — No
85% 84.3–90.5 79.8–83.4 — pts — No
80% 85.6–90.0 80.0–83.2 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.8 80.1–82.8 — pts — No
Jamal — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–91.7 79.1–84.2 1.68 pts — No
90% 83.4–91.1 79.5–83.7 0.32 pts — No
85% 84.3–90.7 79.8–83.5 — pts — No
80% 85.8–90.2 80.0–83.3 — pts — No
75% 86.2–90.0 80.1–83.1 — pts — No
Jordan — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.3–92.5 79.0–84.6 1.33 pts — No
90% 84.1–91.9 79.5–84.2 0.1 pts — No
85% 84.4–91.3 79.8–83.9 — pts — No
80% 85.2–90.7 80.0–83.6 — pts — No
75% 86.3–90.6 80.2–83.5 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–92.1 79.3–84.2 1.7 pts — No
90% 83.4–91.2 79.9–83.8 0.4 pts — No
85% 84.0–90.9 80.0–83.5 — pts — No
80% 84.5–90.6 80.2–83.2 — pts — No
75% 86.0–90.4 80.2–82.9 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–91.5 79.0–84.3 1.13 pts — No
90% 83.4–91.2 79.4–83.9 0.43 pts — No
85% 84.1–90.7 79.7–83.6 — pts — No
80% 85.2–90.3 79.9–83.4 — pts — No
75% 86.1–90.1 80.1–83.2 — pts — No
Lexi — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.5–92.7 79.6–83.9 1.38 pts — No
90% 83.4–91.3 79.9–83.6 0.26 pts — No
85% 84.3–90.4 80.1–83.3 — pts — No
80% 85.4–90.0 80.3–83.1 — pts — No
75% 85.7–89.9 80.4–82.8 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at GS — Actual: CHI 71, GS 91
Level CHI range GS range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–91.9 80.0–85.0 2.03 pts — No
90% 84.2–91.2 80.4–84.6 0.44 pts — No
85% 84.8–90.8 80.7–84.4 — pts — No
80% 85.4–90.3 80.9–84.2 — pts — No
75% 86.0–90.1 81.1–84.0 — pts — No