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

Minnesota Lynx at Portland Fire

MIN 85 – POR 81

August 12, 2026 · Final

Jamal

Best model for this game

Jamal
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 MIN at POR

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model POR — one dot per model Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Vince Chambers
MIN 87.8–94.2 POR 84.1–88.8 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.4) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 88.0–93.7 POR 84.5–88.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.4) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 88.3–92.7 POR 84.7–87.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.4) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 88.6–92.5 POR 84.8–87.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.4) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 88.7–92.3 POR 84.9–87.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.4) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.0) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
29.04
p-value
4.35e-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.

Reg
MIN 87.1–95.1 POR 83.3–89.0 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.2) — by 4.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 88.0–94.6 POR 84.1–88.6 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.2) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 88.3–93.5 POR 84.4–88.4 Overlap 0.07 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.2) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 88.7–92.9 POR 84.6–88.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.2) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 88.9–92.9 POR 84.8–88.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 86.2) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
24.34
p-value
4.27e-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
MIN 86.1–94.4 POR 81.9–88.6 Overlap 2.58 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.7–93.7 POR 83.9–88.3 Overlap 1.54 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.2–93.3 POR 84.1–88.0 Overlap 0.79 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.5–92.9 POR 84.4–87.7 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.8–92.7 POR 84.5–87.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.2) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
22.57
p-value
5.50e-68

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
MIN 85.8–94.9 POR 81.5–88.7 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.5–94.2 POR 82.5–88.4 Overlap 1.9 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.0–93.7 POR 84.1–88.0 Overlap 1.06 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.3–93.3 POR 84.4–87.7 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.6–93.0 POR 84.6–87.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.3) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.9) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
21.41
p-value
3.65e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
MIN 84.5–94.1 POR 81.3–88.7 Overlap 4.14 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.3–93.3 POR 81.8–87.6 Overlap 2.25 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–91.9 POR 82.7–87.1 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.7–91.7 POR 83.3–86.8 Overlap 0.17 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.1–91.3 POR 83.6–86.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.0) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
19.28
p-value
4.97e-55

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
MIN 85.4–93.7 POR 80.8–88.6 Overlap 3.18 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.1–93.1 POR 81.7–87.9 Overlap 1.78 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.5–92.6 POR 82.9–87.6 Overlap 1.07 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.8–92.3 POR 84.0–87.4 Overlap 0.52 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.1–92.0 POR 84.2–87.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.6) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
20.34
p-value
5.29e-60

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
MIN 85.3–94.3 POR 80.4–88.6 Overlap 3.28 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.9–93.0 POR 81.7–87.8 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.9–92.7 POR 82.3–87.5 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.3–92.6 POR 83.3–87.3 Overlap 0.01 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.6–92.1 POR 84.0–87.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
18.72
p-value
1.43e-53

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
MIN 85.2–95.1 POR 81.7–88.7 Overlap 3.43 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.2–93.7 POR 82.6–88.0 Overlap 1.83 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.5–93.3 POR 83.4–87.7 Overlap 1.19 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.4–92.9 POR 83.9–87.6 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.9–92.4 POR 84.1–87.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.9) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
19.85
p-value
1.74e-56

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
MIN 84.8–94.7 POR 81.8–88.3 Overlap 3.53 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.6–93.9 POR 82.5–87.7 Overlap 2.15 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–93.4 POR 83.0–87.4 Overlap 1.3 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.5–93.0 POR 83.6–87.3 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.8–92.7 POR 83.8–87.0 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
19.89
p-value
2.64e-56

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
MIN 85.0–94.5 POR 81.2–88.3 Overlap 3.27 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.8–93.8 POR 81.8–88.0 Overlap 2.24 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.3–93.3 POR 82.8–87.7 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.7–92.9 POR 83.2–87.5 Overlap 0.79 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.0–92.6 POR 83.9–87.1 Overlap 0.12 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.8) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.5) — by 4.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
19.54
p-value
4.24e-56

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
MIN 85.3–94.1 POR 81.7–88.5 Overlap 3.26 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 85.8–93.7 POR 82.5–87.8 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.6–92.7 POR 83.4–87.5 Overlap 0.9 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.1–92.1 POR 83.8–87.3 Overlap 0.14 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.4–91.8 POR 84.0–87.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.7) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.6) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
19.87
p-value
6.61e-57

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
MIN 85.9–94.9 POR 80.9–88.5 Overlap 2.65 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.1–94.0 POR 81.8–88.2 Overlap 2.16 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.6–93.6 POR 82.5–87.8 Overlap 1.24 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.3–92.8 POR 83.4–87.4 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 87.7–92.7 POR 83.7–87.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 85, POR 81

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 90.1) over Portland Fire (avg. 85.4) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
20.24
p-value
1.31e-58

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 — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 87.8–94.2 84.1–88.8 0.99 pts — No
90% 88.0–93.7 84.5–88.0 — pts — No
85% 88.3–92.7 84.7–87.7 — pts — No
80% 88.6–92.5 84.8–87.4 — pts — No
75% 88.7–92.3 84.9–87.1 — pts — No
Reg — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 87.1–95.1 83.3–89.0 1.96 pts — No
90% 88.0–94.6 84.1–88.6 0.6 pts — No
85% 88.3–93.5 84.4–88.4 0.07 pts — No
80% 88.7–92.9 84.6–88.2 — pts — No
75% 88.9–92.9 84.8–88.0 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.1–94.4 81.9–88.6 2.58 pts — No
90% 86.7–93.7 83.9–88.3 1.54 pts — No
85% 87.2–93.3 84.1–88.0 0.79 pts — No
80% 87.5–92.9 84.4–87.7 0.2 pts — No
75% 87.8–92.7 84.5–87.5 — pts — No
Kevin — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.8–94.9 81.5–88.7 2.95 pts — No
90% 86.5–94.2 82.5–88.4 1.9 pts — No
85% 87.0–93.7 84.1–88.0 1.06 pts — No
80% 87.3–93.3 84.4–87.7 0.33 pts — No
75% 87.6–93.0 84.6–87.5 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–94.1 81.3–88.7 4.14 pts — No
90% 85.3–93.3 81.8–87.6 2.25 pts — No
85% 85.8–91.9 82.7–87.1 1.25 pts — No
80% 86.7–91.7 83.3–86.8 0.17 pts — No
75% 87.1–91.3 83.6–86.7 — pts — No
Ice — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–93.7 80.8–88.6 3.18 pts — No
90% 86.1–93.1 81.7–87.9 1.78 pts — No
85% 86.5–92.6 82.9–87.6 1.07 pts — No
80% 86.8–92.3 84.0–87.4 0.52 pts — No
75% 87.1–92.0 84.2–87.1 — pts — No
Jamal — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.3–94.3 80.4–88.6 3.28 pts — No
90% 85.9–93.0 81.7–87.8 1.91 pts — No
85% 86.9–92.7 82.3–87.5 0.6 pts — No
80% 87.3–92.6 83.3–87.3 0.01 pts — No
75% 87.6–92.1 84.0–87.0 — pts — No
Jordan — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.2–95.1 81.7–88.7 3.43 pts — No
90% 86.2–93.7 82.6–88.0 1.83 pts — No
85% 86.5–93.3 83.4–87.7 1.19 pts — No
80% 87.4–92.9 83.9–87.6 0.19 pts — No
75% 87.9–92.4 84.1–87.4 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.8–94.7 81.8–88.3 3.53 pts — No
90% 85.6–93.9 82.5–87.7 2.15 pts — No
85% 86.1–93.4 83.0–87.4 1.3 pts — No
80% 86.5–93.0 83.6–87.3 0.77 pts — No
75% 86.8–92.7 83.8–87.0 0.18 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–94.5 81.2–88.3 3.27 pts — No
90% 85.8–93.8 81.8–88.0 2.24 pts — No
85% 86.3–93.3 82.8–87.7 1.38 pts — No
80% 86.7–92.9 83.2–87.5 0.79 pts — No
75% 87.0–92.6 83.9–87.1 0.12 pts — No
Lexi — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.3–94.1 81.7–88.5 3.26 pts — No
90% 85.8–93.7 82.5–87.8 2.0 pts — No
85% 86.6–92.7 83.4–87.5 0.9 pts — No
80% 87.1–92.1 83.8–87.3 0.14 pts — No
75% 87.4–91.8 84.0–87.1 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at POR — Actual: MIN 85, POR 81
Level MIN range POR range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–94.9 80.9–88.5 2.65 pts — No
90% 86.1–94.0 81.8–88.2 2.16 pts — No
85% 86.6–93.6 82.5–87.8 1.24 pts — No
80% 87.3–92.8 83.4–87.4 0.13 pts — No
75% 87.7–92.7 83.7–87.2 — pts — No