Clay's Almanac

Vince Chambers

TOR 80.4–86.4 WAS 81.3–85.5 Overlap 4.2 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.8–85.5 WAS 81.6–85.1 Overlap 3.5 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.1–84.6 WAS 81.8–84.8 Overlap 2.77 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.2–84.2 WAS 82.0–84.7 Overlap 2.19 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.3–84.1 WAS 82.2–84.6 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.6) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic: -5.41
p-value: 1.28e-07

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 80.2–88.4 WAS 81.3–86.1 Overlap 4.73 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.6–87.5 WAS 81.7–85.7 Overlap 3.97 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.8–86.5 WAS 82.0–85.4 Overlap 3.48 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–86.0 WAS 82.2–85.2 Overlap 3.1 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.4–85.5 WAS 82.3–85.1 Overlap 2.78 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Washington Mystics (avg. 83.7) over Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Reg (#2)
t-statistic: -2.15
p-value: 3.29e-02

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 80.3–87.8 WAS 80.8–85.8 Overlap 5.02 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–87.2 WAS 81.3–85.4 Overlap 4.08 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.2–87.1 WAS 81.6–85.0 Overlap 3.33 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–86.8 WAS 81.9–84.8 Overlap 2.94 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 81.4–86.4 WAS 82.1–84.7 Overlap 2.58 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 83.7) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic: 1.24
p-value: 2.17e-01

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 80.4–88.1 WAS 80.4–86.4 Overlap 5.98 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.1–87.7 WAS 80.9–85.9 Overlap 4.85 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–87.4 WAS 81.2–85.6 Overlap 4.31 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.6–87.3 WAS 81.5–85.4 Overlap 3.76 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.9–87.1 WAS 81.7–85.2 Overlap 3.3 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.4) — by 1.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math

Model: Kevin (#4)
t-statistic: 5.51
p-value: 8.88e-08

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 81.1–87.9 WAS 79.3–86.2 Overlap 5.06 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–87.7 WAS 79.9–85.6 Overlap 4.34 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.7–87.4 WAS 80.2–85.3 Overlap 3.6 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.1–87.2 WAS 80.5–85.0 Overlap 2.93 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 82.2–87.0 WAS 80.7–84.8 Overlap 2.54 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic: 10.92
p-value: 1.49e-23

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 82.2–88.4 WAS 80.0–85.7 Overlap 3.47 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.3–87.7 WAS 80.4–85.5 Overlap 3.2 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.7–87.5 WAS 80.7–85.3 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.0–87.3 WAS 80.9–85.2 Overlap 2.23 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.4–87.2 WAS 81.3–85.1 Overlap 1.66 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.2) — by 2.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Ice (#6)
t-statistic: 12.27
p-value: 1.94e-28

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

Jamal

TOR 81.9–88.1 WAS 79.6–86.2 Overlap 4.24 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.1) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.2–88.0 WAS 79.9–85.7 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.1) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.5–87.8 WAS 80.3–85.3 Overlap 2.78 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.1) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 82.7–87.7 WAS 80.8–85.0 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.1) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.2–87.5 WAS 81.0–84.8 Overlap 1.59 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 83.1) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Jamal (#7)
t-statistic: 12.78
p-value: 2.50e-30

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 81.0–88.1 WAS 79.3–86.6 Overlap 5.54 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.8–87.8 WAS 79.9–86.0 Overlap 4.14 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.6–87.4 WAS 80.3–85.6 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.3–87.2 WAS 80.6–85.3 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.0 WAS 80.8–85.1 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Jordan (#8)
t-statistic: 12.21
p-value: 2.90e-28

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

Darren "Dimes" Lin

TOR 81.0–88.1 WAS 79.4–86.4 Overlap 5.4 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.6–87.7 WAS 80.0–85.9 Overlap 3.31 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 83.2–87.5 WAS 80.3–85.5 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.3–87.2 WAS 80.6–85.2 Overlap 1.93 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 83.5–87.1 WAS 80.8–85.0 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 85.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.9) — by 2.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic: 13.68
p-value: 1.14e-33

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 81.2–87.7 WAS 79.4–86.2 Overlap 5.01 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.2–87.3 WAS 79.9–85.7 Overlap 3.52 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.4–87.0 WAS 80.3–85.3 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 82.5–86.8 WAS 80.5–85.1 Overlap 2.52 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 82.7–86.7 WAS 80.8–84.8 Overlap 2.12 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.9) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic: 11.12
p-value: 2.28e-24

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 79.9–88.4 WAS 79.6–86.1 Overlap 6.18 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 80.6–87.7 WAS 80.1–85.6 Overlap 4.97 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.0–87.3 WAS 80.4–85.2 Overlap 4.19 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.4–87.0 WAS 80.7–85.0 Overlap 3.58 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.7–86.7 WAS 80.9–84.7 Overlap 3.08 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 82.8) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math

Model: Lexi (#11)
t-statistic: 6.74
p-value: 8.39e-11

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 80.7–88.4 WAS 81.8–87.1 Overlap 5.32 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.3–87.8 WAS 82.0–86.7 Overlap 4.71 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 81.7–87.3 WAS 82.2–86.2 Overlap 3.96 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.0–87.0 WAS 82.4–85.8 Overlap 3.39 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

TOR 82.2–86.8 WAS 82.5–85.4 Overlap 2.94 pts Actual: TOR 82, WAS 93

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 84.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 84.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math

Model: Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic: 1.82
p-value: 7.00e-02

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.

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.4–86.4	81.3–85.5	4.2 pts	—	No
90%	80.8–85.5	81.6–85.1	3.5 pts	—	No
85%	81.1–84.6	81.8–84.8	2.77 pts	—	No
80%	81.2–84.2	82.0–84.7	2.19 pts	—	No
75%	81.3–84.1	82.2–84.6	1.91 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.2–88.4	81.3–86.1	4.73 pts	—	No
90%	80.6–87.5	81.7–85.7	3.97 pts	—	No
85%	80.8–86.5	82.0–85.4	3.48 pts	—	No
80%	81.2–86.0	82.2–85.2	3.1 pts	—	No
75%	81.4–85.5	82.3–85.1	2.78 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.3–87.8	80.8–85.8	5.02 pts	—	No
90%	81.0–87.2	81.3–85.4	4.08 pts	—	No
85%	81.2–87.1	81.6–85.0	3.33 pts	—	No
80%	81.3–86.8	81.9–84.8	2.94 pts	—	No
75%	81.4–86.4	82.1–84.7	2.58 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.4–88.1	80.4–86.4	5.98 pts	—	No
90%	81.1–87.7	80.9–85.9	4.85 pts	—	No
85%	81.3–87.4	81.2–85.6	4.31 pts	—	No
80%	81.6–87.3	81.5–85.4	3.76 pts	—	No
75%	81.9–87.1	81.7–85.2	3.3 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	81.1–87.9	79.3–86.2	5.06 pts	—	No
90%	81.3–87.7	79.9–85.6	4.34 pts	—	No
85%	81.7–87.4	80.2–85.3	3.6 pts	—	No
80%	82.1–87.2	80.5–85.0	2.93 pts	—	No
75%	82.2–87.0	80.7–84.8	2.54 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	82.2–88.4	80.0–85.7	3.47 pts	—	No
90%	82.3–87.7	80.4–85.5	3.2 pts	—	No
85%	82.7–87.5	80.7–85.3	2.63 pts	—	No
80%	83.0–87.3	80.9–85.2	2.23 pts	—	No
75%	83.4–87.2	81.3–85.1	1.66 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	81.9–88.1	79.6–86.2	4.24 pts	—	No
90%	82.2–88.0	79.9–85.7	3.49 pts	—	No
85%	82.5–87.8	80.3–85.3	2.78 pts	—	No
80%	82.7–87.7	80.8–85.0	2.26 pts	—	No
75%	83.2–87.5	81.0–84.8	1.59 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	81.0–88.1	79.3–86.6	5.54 pts	—	No
90%	81.8–87.8	79.9–86.0	4.14 pts	—	No
85%	82.6–87.4	80.3–85.6	2.99 pts	—	No
80%	83.3–87.2	80.6–85.3	2.0 pts	—	No
75%	83.5–87.0	80.8–85.1	1.56 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	81.0–88.1	79.4–86.4	5.4 pts	—	No
90%	82.6–87.7	80.0–85.9	3.31 pts	—	No
85%	83.2–87.5	80.3–85.5	2.34 pts	—	No
80%	83.3–87.2	80.6–85.2	1.93 pts	—	No
75%	83.5–87.1	80.8–85.0	1.48 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	81.2–87.7	79.4–86.2	5.01 pts	—	No
90%	82.2–87.3	79.9–85.7	3.52 pts	—	No
85%	82.4–87.0	80.3–85.3	2.95 pts	—	No
80%	82.5–86.8	80.5–85.1	2.52 pts	—	No
75%	82.7–86.7	80.8–84.8	2.12 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	79.9–88.4	79.6–86.1	6.18 pts	—	No
90%	80.6–87.7	80.1–85.6	4.97 pts	—	No
85%	81.0–87.3	80.4–85.2	4.19 pts	—	No
80%	81.4–87.0	80.7–85.0	3.58 pts	—	No
75%	81.7–86.7	80.9–84.7	3.08 pts	—	No

Level	TOR range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	80.7–88.4	81.8–87.1	5.32 pts	—	No
90%	81.3–87.8	82.0–86.7	4.71 pts	—	No
85%	81.7–87.3	82.2–86.2	3.96 pts	—	No
80%	82.0–87.0	82.4–85.8	3.39 pts	—	No
75%	82.2–86.8	82.5–85.4	2.94 pts	—	No

Toronto Tempo at Washington Mystics