Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 25, 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 Connecticut Sun

CHI 17 – CON 22

August 25, 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 CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

CHI — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Vince Chambers
CHI 85.4–90.1 CON 79.4–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.0 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.6–89.8 CON 79.7–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.7–89.6 CON 79.9–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.0–89.4 CON 80.1–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 86.1–89.1 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 6.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
49.94
p-value
8.13e-166

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 84.5–90.6 CON 79.7–84.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.0–90.1 CON 79.9–83.7 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.3–89.8 CON 80.0–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.6–89.5 CON 80.3–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.8–89.3 CON 80.4–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
43.69
p-value
2.03e-150

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 83.7–90.7 CON 79.3–83.9 Overlap 0.14 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.4–89.8 CON 79.7–83.7 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.2–89.2 CON 80.0–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.4–89.0 CON 80.1–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.7–88.7 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
39.16
p-value
1.69e-132

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 83.5–89.9 CON 79.4–84.3 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 5.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.4–89.2 CON 79.8–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 5.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.0–89.0 CON 80.0–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 5.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.3–88.8 CON 80.2–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 5.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.8–88.7 CON 80.4–82.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.2) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) — by 5.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
42.69
p-value
9.45e-146

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 83.2–89.9 CON 79.5–84.1 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 83.5–89.0 CON 79.9–83.8 Overlap 0.29 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.2–88.7 CON 80.1–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.5–88.6 CON 80.3–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–88.0 CON 80.4–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — 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
32.32
p-value
1.52e-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.

Ice
CHI 83.5–89.7 CON 79.9–83.8 Overlap 0.31 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.0–89.2 CON 80.1–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.3–88.9 CON 80.3–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.6–88.6 CON 80.5–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.8–88.4 CON 80.7–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
36.77
p-value
3.67e-125

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 83.1–89.4 CON 79.5–84.1 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 83.5–88.9 CON 79.9–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.2–88.7 CON 80.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–88.4 CON 80.1–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.0–88.1 CON 80.4–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
36.05
p-value
2.06e-121

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 83.4–90.8 CON 80.0–84.4 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 5.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

CHI 84.0–90.2 CON 80.3–83.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 5.2 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.4–89.8 CON 80.4–83.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 5.2 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–89.5 CON 80.5–83.4 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 5.2 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.9–89.3 CON 80.7–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.1) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.9) — by 5.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
34.71
p-value
2.72e-114

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 84.0–89.9 CON 79.9–84.1 Overlap 0.06 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 5.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.4–89.6 CON 80.0–83.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 5.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–89.2 CON 80.2–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 5.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.9–88.5 CON 80.4–83.1 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 5.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.0–88.3 CON 80.6–82.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) — by 5.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
35.61
p-value
5.00e-118

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 83.2–90.2 CON 79.3–83.8 Overlap 0.59 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 83.8–89.6 CON 79.7–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.1–89.2 CON 79.9–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.4–89.0 CON 80.1–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–88.7 CON 80.3–82.9 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) — by 5.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
37.25
p-value
6.93e-121

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 83.6–90.1 CON 79.1–84.2 Overlap 0.59 pts Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

CHI 84.1–89.8 CON 79.5–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.3 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.4–89.5 CON 79.8–83.5 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.3 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.8–89.1 CON 80.0–83.3 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.1–88.8 CON 80.1–83.2 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 87.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.7) — by 5.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
35.63
p-value
4.84e-118

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 84.0–89.6 CON 78.0–83.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 5.8 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.4–89.2 CON 78.6–83.0 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 5.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.7–88.9 CON 79.1–82.8 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 5.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 84.9–88.7 CON 79.2–82.7 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 5.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

CHI 85.1–88.5 CON 79.4–82.6 No overlap Actual: CHI 17, CON 22

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Chicago Sky (avg. 86.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.0) — by 5.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
41.27
p-value
1.66e-143

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 CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–90.1 79.4–83.8 — pts — No
90% 85.6–89.8 79.7–83.4 — pts — No
85% 85.7–89.6 79.9–83.2 — pts — No
80% 86.0–89.4 80.1–83.0 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.1 80.3–82.9 — pts — No
Reg — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.5–90.6 79.7–84.0 — pts — No
90% 85.0–90.1 79.9–83.7 — pts — No
85% 85.3–89.8 80.0–83.4 — pts — No
80% 85.6–89.5 80.3–83.1 — pts — No
75% 85.8–89.3 80.4–83.0 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–90.7 79.3–83.9 0.14 pts — No
90% 84.4–89.8 79.7–83.7 — pts — No
85% 85.2–89.2 80.0–83.2 — pts — No
80% 85.4–89.0 80.1–83.0 — pts — No
75% 85.7–88.7 80.3–82.9 — pts — No
Kevin — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–89.9 79.4–84.3 0.73 pts — No
90% 84.4–89.2 79.8–83.8 — pts — No
85% 85.0–89.0 80.0–83.4 — pts — No
80% 85.3–88.8 80.2–83.1 — pts — No
75% 85.8–88.7 80.4–82.8 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–89.9 79.5–84.1 0.95 pts — No
90% 83.5–89.0 79.9–83.8 0.29 pts — No
85% 84.2–88.7 80.1–83.5 — pts — No
80% 84.5–88.6 80.3–83.3 — pts — No
75% 84.7–88.0 80.4–83.2 — pts — No
Ice — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.5–89.7 79.9–83.8 0.31 pts — No
90% 84.0–89.2 80.1–83.5 — pts — No
85% 84.3–88.9 80.3–83.3 — pts — No
80% 84.6–88.6 80.5–83.2 — pts — No
75% 84.8–88.4 80.7–83.0 — pts — No
Jamal — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.1–89.4 79.5–84.1 1.03 pts — No
90% 83.5–88.9 79.9–83.5 — pts — No
85% 84.2–88.7 80.0–83.3 — pts — No
80% 84.7–88.4 80.1–83.2 — pts — No
75% 85.0–88.1 80.4–83.1 — pts — No
Jordan — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.4–90.8 80.0–84.4 1.05 pts — No
90% 84.0–90.2 80.3–83.9 — pts — No
85% 84.4–89.8 80.4–83.6 — pts — No
80% 84.7–89.5 80.5–83.4 — pts — No
75% 84.9–89.3 80.7–83.3 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–89.9 79.9–84.1 0.06 pts — No
90% 84.4–89.6 80.0–83.6 — pts — No
85% 84.7–89.2 80.2–83.3 — pts — No
80% 84.9–88.5 80.4–83.1 — pts — No
75% 85.0–88.3 80.6–82.9 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.2–90.2 79.3–83.8 0.59 pts — No
90% 83.8–89.6 79.7–83.5 — pts — No
85% 84.1–89.2 79.9–83.2 — pts — No
80% 84.4–89.0 80.1–83.0 — pts — No
75% 84.7–88.7 80.3–82.9 — pts — No
Lexi — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.6–90.1 79.1–84.2 0.59 pts — No
90% 84.1–89.8 79.5–83.8 — pts — No
85% 84.4–89.5 79.8–83.5 — pts — No
80% 84.8–89.1 80.0–83.3 — pts — No
75% 85.1–88.8 80.1–83.2 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — CHI at CON — Actual: CHI 17, CON 22
Level CHI range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–89.6 78.0–83.8 — pts — No
90% 84.4–89.2 78.6–83.0 — pts — No
85% 84.7–88.9 79.1–82.8 — pts — No
80% 84.9–88.7 79.2–82.7 — pts — No
75% 85.1–88.5 79.4–82.6 — pts — No