Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 13, 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

Atlanta Dream at Connecticut Sun

ATL 104 – CON 69

August 13, 2026 · Final

Maya Jefferson

Best model for this game

Maya Jefferson
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 ATL at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

ATL — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Vince Chambers
ATL 86.2–90.8 CON 81.4–86.0 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) — by 4.6 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 86.3–90.3 CON 81.7–85.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 86.6–89.9 CON 82.0–85.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 86.7–89.7 CON 82.2–85.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 87.0–89.6 CON 82.3–85.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.7) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
34.26
p-value
1.63e-104

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

Reg
ATL 83.3–91.1 CON 78.0–86.0 Overlap 2.68 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.8–90.6 CON 79.0–85.6 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 84.3–90.2 CON 79.7–85.5 Overlap 1.22 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 84.7–90.1 CON 79.9–85.4 Overlap 0.7 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 85.1–89.9 CON 80.3–85.3 Overlap 0.22 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 83.3) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
18.65
p-value
5.72e-52

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

Dr. Wallace
ATL 83.0–91.1 CON 78.9–86.7 Overlap 3.65 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 83.3–90.7 CON 79.4–86.2 Overlap 2.86 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.6–90.2 CON 79.7–85.1 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.7–90.0 CON 79.9–84.9 Overlap 1.24 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.9–89.7 CON 80.0–84.8 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.6) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
17.11
p-value
4.13e-46

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

Kevin
ATL 82.0–91.1 CON 78.5–85.2 Overlap 3.23 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.7–90.4 CON 78.7–85.0 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–89.9 CON 79.0–84.5 Overlap 1.28 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–89.5 CON 79.1–84.3 Overlap 0.76 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.9–89.2 CON 79.3–84.2 Overlap 0.32 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 82.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
18.91
p-value
5.98e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
ATL 83.0–89.2 CON 78.2–84.7 Overlap 1.7 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–88.6 CON 78.6–84.2 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–88.5 CON 78.9–83.7 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.7–88.2 CON 79.1–83.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 83.8–87.6 CON 79.2–83.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
21.16
p-value
3.18e-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.

Ice
ATL 81.8–89.9 CON 78.5–85.9 Overlap 4.05 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.5–89.3 CON 78.7–85.2 Overlap 2.7 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–88.9 CON 78.8–84.7 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–88.5 CON 78.9–84.4 Overlap 1.2 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–88.3 CON 79.0–84.2 Overlap 0.71 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.9) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
19.37
p-value
2.39e-54

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

Jamal
ATL 82.9–90.6 CON 78.2–85.7 Overlap 2.79 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.1–89.9 CON 78.7–85.3 Overlap 2.19 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.3–89.3 CON 78.9–84.9 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.7–89.1 CON 79.0–84.6 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.9–89.0 CON 79.2–84.3 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
18.68
p-value
4.67e-52

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

Jordan
ATL 81.7–90.6 CON 78.3–85.0 Overlap 3.33 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.4–89.9 CON 78.6–84.3 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 82.9–89.5 CON 79.0–84.2 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.3–89.1 CON 79.1–84.0 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.6–88.8 CON 79.3–83.9 Overlap 0.35 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
20.33
p-value
3.11e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
ATL 83.1–89.8 CON 78.4–85.3 Overlap 2.2 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.3–89.0 CON 78.6–84.8 Overlap 1.47 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–88.8 CON 78.8–84.4 Overlap 1.08 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.6–88.6 CON 79.0–84.1 Overlap 0.56 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.7–88.3 CON 79.2–84.1 Overlap 0.35 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
21.24
p-value
1.59e-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
ATL 82.8–91.0 CON 78.0–86.3 Overlap 3.53 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 83.1–89.9 CON 78.4–85.2 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–89.1 CON 78.7–84.7 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.5–88.8 CON 78.8–84.3 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.7–88.7 CON 78.9–84.0 Overlap 0.25 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by 4.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
18.86
p-value
8.96e-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.

Lexi
ATL 82.2–90.5 CON 78.3–85.4 Overlap 3.2 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.4–89.7 CON 78.7–84.8 Overlap 2.45 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.0–89.1 CON 78.9–84.6 Overlap 1.57 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.2–88.6 CON 79.0–84.2 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 83.5–88.4 CON 79.1–84.1 Overlap 0.58 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 85.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
17.81
p-value
9.06e-49

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

Coach Sarah Watanabe
ATL 82.4–90.6 CON 78.3–87.1 Overlap 4.68 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 82.8–90.3 CON 78.6–86.1 Overlap 3.35 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

ATL 83.0–90.0 CON 78.7–85.6 Overlap 2.66 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–89.6 CON 78.8–85.1 Overlap 1.7 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 83.4–89.3 CON 78.9–84.8 Overlap 1.4 pts Actual: ATL 104, CON 69

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 86.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
15.35
p-value
1.43e-39

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

View as table
Vince Chambers — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.2–90.8 81.4–86.0 — pts — No
90% 86.3–90.3 81.7–85.7 — pts — No
85% 86.6–89.9 82.0–85.4 — pts — No
80% 86.7–89.7 82.2–85.2 — pts — No
75% 87.0–89.6 82.3–85.1 — pts — No
Reg — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.3–91.1 78.0–86.0 2.68 pts — No
90% 83.8–90.6 79.0–85.6 1.8 pts — No
85% 84.3–90.2 79.7–85.5 1.22 pts — No
80% 84.7–90.1 79.9–85.4 0.7 pts — No
75% 85.1–89.9 80.3–85.3 0.22 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–91.1 78.9–86.7 3.65 pts — No
90% 83.3–90.7 79.4–86.2 2.86 pts — No
85% 83.6–90.2 79.7–85.1 1.56 pts — No
80% 83.7–90.0 79.9–84.9 1.24 pts — No
75% 83.9–89.7 80.0–84.8 0.87 pts — No
Kevin — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.0–91.1 78.5–85.2 3.23 pts — No
90% 82.7–90.4 78.7–85.0 2.27 pts — No
85% 83.2–89.9 79.0–84.5 1.28 pts — No
80% 83.5–89.5 79.1–84.3 0.76 pts — No
75% 83.9–89.2 79.3–84.2 0.32 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.0–89.2 78.2–84.7 1.7 pts — No
90% 83.2–88.6 78.6–84.2 1.04 pts — No
85% 83.5–88.5 78.9–83.7 0.2 pts — No
80% 83.7–88.2 79.1–83.6 — pts — No
75% 83.8–87.6 79.2–83.4 — pts — No
Ice — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.8–89.9 78.5–85.9 4.05 pts — No
90% 82.5–89.3 78.7–85.2 2.7 pts — No
85% 82.9–88.9 78.8–84.7 1.81 pts — No
80% 83.2–88.5 78.9–84.4 1.2 pts — No
75% 83.5–88.3 79.0–84.2 0.71 pts — No
Jamal — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.9–90.6 78.2–85.7 2.79 pts — No
90% 83.1–89.9 78.7–85.3 2.19 pts — No
85% 83.3–89.3 78.9–84.9 1.59 pts — No
80% 83.7–89.1 79.0–84.6 0.84 pts — No
75% 83.9–89.0 79.2–84.3 0.42 pts — No
Jordan — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 81.7–90.6 78.3–85.0 3.33 pts — No
90% 82.4–89.9 78.6–84.3 1.91 pts — No
85% 82.9–89.5 79.0–84.2 1.26 pts — No
80% 83.3–89.1 79.1–84.0 0.74 pts — No
75% 83.6–88.8 79.3–83.9 0.35 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–89.8 78.4–85.3 2.2 pts — No
90% 83.3–89.0 78.6–84.8 1.47 pts — No
85% 83.4–88.8 78.8–84.4 1.08 pts — No
80% 83.6–88.6 79.0–84.1 0.56 pts — No
75% 83.7–88.3 79.2–84.1 0.35 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.8–91.0 78.0–86.3 3.53 pts — No
90% 83.1–89.9 78.4–85.2 2.09 pts — No
85% 83.2–89.1 78.7–84.7 1.46 pts — No
80% 83.5–88.8 78.8–84.3 0.84 pts — No
75% 83.7–88.7 78.9–84.0 0.25 pts — No
Lexi — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.2–90.5 78.3–85.4 3.2 pts — No
90% 82.4–89.7 78.7–84.8 2.45 pts — No
85% 83.0–89.1 78.9–84.6 1.57 pts — No
80% 83.2–88.6 79.0–84.2 0.99 pts — No
75% 83.5–88.4 79.1–84.1 0.58 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — ATL at CON — Actual: ATL 104, CON 69
Level ATL range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 82.4–90.6 78.3–87.1 4.68 pts — No
90% 82.8–90.3 78.6–86.1 3.35 pts — No
85% 83.0–90.0 78.7–85.6 2.66 pts — No
80% 83.4–89.6 78.8–85.1 1.7 pts — No
75% 83.4–89.3 78.9–84.8 1.4 pts — No