Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 26, 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

Golden State Valkyries at Connecticut Sun

GS 89 – CON 64

August 26, 2026 · Final

Vince Chambers

Best model for this game

Vince Chambers
All models: 6-6
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 GS at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

GS — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Vince Chambers
GS 79.7–85.1 CON 78.3–83.1 Overlap 3.45 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 80.0–84.5 CON 78.7–82.8 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 80.2–84.2 CON 79.0–82.5 Overlap 2.27 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 80.3–84.1 CON 79.2–82.3 Overlap 1.96 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 80.9–83.9 CON 79.3–82.2 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.7) — by 1.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
12.75
p-value
3.16e-31

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
GS 77.9–86.0 CON 77.9–83.4 Overlap 5.47 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.5–85.4 CON 78.4–83.0 Overlap 4.5 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.0–85.0 CON 78.8–82.8 Overlap 3.81 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.3–84.6 CON 78.9–82.6 Overlap 3.27 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.6–84.4 CON 79.1–82.4 Overlap 2.8 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 82.0) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
6.56
p-value
1.90e-10

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
GS 77.9–85.3 CON 78.5–83.8 Overlap 5.32 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.5–84.7 CON 79.3–82.9 Overlap 3.62 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.9–84.3 CON 79.4–82.4 Overlap 3.02 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.2–84.0 CON 79.6–82.2 Overlap 2.62 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 79.5–83.8 CON 79.8–82.2 Overlap 2.36 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
3.69
p-value
2.60e-04

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
GS 77.8–84.3 CON 78.9–83.6 Overlap 4.69 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.7–84.0 CON 79.4–83.4 Overlap 3.94 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.9–83.8 CON 79.6–83.0 Overlap 3.4 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.3–83.5 CON 79.8–82.7 Overlap 2.96 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 79.5–83.3 CON 79.9–82.7 Overlap 2.72 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
1.95
p-value
5.14e-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. Lila Shah
GS 78.7–84.2 CON 78.7–83.0 Overlap 4.32 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.9–83.9 CON 79.3–82.8 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.1–83.4 CON 79.6–82.5 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 79.3–83.2 CON 79.9–82.2 Overlap 2.39 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 79.5–83.1 CON 80.1–82.1 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.5) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.1) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
3.06
p-value
2.42e-03

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
GS 77.3–84.8 CON 79.1–84.0 Overlap 4.84 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 77.9–84.2 CON 79.4–83.4 Overlap 4.01 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.3–83.8 CON 79.6–83.1 Overlap 3.43 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.6–83.5 CON 79.9–82.9 Overlap 3.05 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.8–83.2 CON 80.0–82.8 Overlap 2.86 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.3) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-2.02
p-value
4.41e-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.

Jamal
GS 77.9–83.8 CON 78.6–84.1 Overlap 5.17 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.3–83.5 CON 79.5–83.8 Overlap 3.97 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.6–83.3 CON 79.8–83.5 Overlap 3.52 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.8–83.1 CON 80.0–83.3 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.0–82.9 CON 80.1–83.2 Overlap 2.84 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.5) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-3.75
p-value
2.02e-04

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
GS 76.9–84.0 CON 78.8–84.7 Overlap 5.19 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.5) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 77.5–83.5 CON 79.3–84.3 Overlap 4.15 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.5) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 77.9–83.1 CON 79.6–84.0 Overlap 3.47 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.5) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.1–82.8 CON 79.9–83.7 Overlap 2.94 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.5) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

GS 78.4–82.6 CON 80.0–83.5 Overlap 2.51 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.8) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.5) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-8.55
p-value
3.07e-16

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
GS 77.5–83.9 CON 79.1–84.2 Overlap 4.8 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.2–83.5 CON 79.5–83.8 Overlap 4.03 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.4–83.4 CON 79.7–83.5 Overlap 3.69 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.7–83.1 CON 80.0–83.3 Overlap 3.19 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.8–82.9 CON 80.1–83.1 Overlap 2.81 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.6) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 80.8) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-5.63
p-value
3.65e-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.

Maya Jefferson
GS 77.5–84.6 CON 78.5–84.4 Overlap 5.97 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.1–84.0 CON 78.9–84.0 Overlap 5.01 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.4–83.6 CON 79.3–83.6 Overlap 4.37 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.7–83.3 CON 79.5–83.4 Overlap 3.84 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.0–83.1 CON 79.7–83.2 Overlap 3.41 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-2.69
p-value
7.51e-03

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
GS 77.7–84.7 CON 78.5–84.3 Overlap 5.85 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.3–84.1 CON 79.0–83.9 Overlap 4.91 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.6–83.8 CON 79.3–83.6 Overlap 4.29 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.9–83.5 CON 79.5–83.3 Overlap 3.82 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.2–83.3 CON 79.7–83.1 Overlap 3.43 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Connecticut Sun (avg. 81.4) over Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-1.29
p-value
1.96e-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.

Coach Sarah Watanabe
GS 77.8–85.1 CON 78.4–85.0 Overlap 6.64 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 78.2–84.6 CON 78.6–84.0 Overlap 5.36 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.0–84.2 CON 78.9–83.2 Overlap 4.17 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.2–84.0 CON 79.0–82.9 Overlap 3.76 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

GS 79.5–84.0 CON 79.2–82.6 Overlap 3.08 pts Actual: GS 89, CON 64

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Golden State Valkyries (avg. 81.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 80.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
4.42
p-value
1.30e-05

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 — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.7–85.1 78.3–83.1 3.45 pts — No
90% 80.0–84.5 78.7–82.8 2.73 pts — No
85% 80.2–84.2 79.0–82.5 2.27 pts — No
80% 80.3–84.1 79.2–82.3 1.96 pts — No
75% 80.9–83.9 79.3–82.2 1.26 pts — No
Reg — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.9–86.0 77.9–83.4 5.47 pts — No
90% 78.5–85.4 78.4–83.0 4.5 pts — No
85% 79.0–85.0 78.8–82.8 3.81 pts — No
80% 79.3–84.6 78.9–82.6 3.27 pts — No
75% 79.6–84.4 79.1–82.4 2.8 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.9–85.3 78.5–83.8 5.32 pts — No
90% 78.5–84.7 79.3–82.9 3.62 pts — No
85% 78.9–84.3 79.4–82.4 3.02 pts — No
80% 79.2–84.0 79.6–82.2 2.62 pts — No
75% 79.5–83.8 79.8–82.2 2.36 pts — No
Kevin — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.8–84.3 78.9–83.6 4.69 pts — No
90% 78.7–84.0 79.4–83.4 3.94 pts — No
85% 78.9–83.8 79.6–83.0 3.4 pts — No
80% 79.3–83.5 79.8–82.7 2.96 pts — No
75% 79.5–83.3 79.9–82.7 2.72 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 78.7–84.2 78.7–83.0 4.32 pts — No
90% 78.9–83.9 79.3–82.8 3.49 pts — No
85% 79.1–83.4 79.6–82.5 2.88 pts — No
80% 79.3–83.2 79.9–82.2 2.39 pts — No
75% 79.5–83.1 80.1–82.1 2.09 pts — No
Ice — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.3–84.8 79.1–84.0 4.84 pts — No
90% 77.9–84.2 79.4–83.4 4.01 pts — No
85% 78.3–83.8 79.6–83.1 3.43 pts — No
80% 78.6–83.5 79.9–82.9 3.05 pts — No
75% 78.8–83.2 80.0–82.8 2.86 pts — No
Jamal — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.9–83.8 78.6–84.1 5.17 pts — No
90% 78.3–83.5 79.5–83.8 3.97 pts — No
85% 78.6–83.3 79.8–83.5 3.52 pts — No
80% 78.8–83.1 80.0–83.3 3.13 pts — No
75% 79.0–82.9 80.1–83.2 2.84 pts — No
Jordan — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 76.9–84.0 78.8–84.7 5.19 pts — No
90% 77.5–83.5 79.3–84.3 4.15 pts — No
85% 77.9–83.1 79.6–84.0 3.47 pts — No
80% 78.1–82.8 79.9–83.7 2.94 pts — No
75% 78.4–82.6 80.0–83.5 2.51 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–83.9 79.1–84.2 4.8 pts — No
90% 78.2–83.5 79.5–83.8 4.03 pts — No
85% 78.4–83.4 79.7–83.5 3.69 pts — No
80% 78.7–83.1 80.0–83.3 3.19 pts — No
75% 78.8–82.9 80.1–83.1 2.81 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.5–84.6 78.5–84.4 5.97 pts — No
90% 78.1–84.0 78.9–84.0 5.01 pts — No
85% 78.4–83.6 79.3–83.6 4.37 pts — No
80% 78.7–83.3 79.5–83.4 3.84 pts — No
75% 79.0–83.1 79.7–83.2 3.41 pts — No
Lexi — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.7–84.7 78.5–84.3 5.85 pts — No
90% 78.3–84.1 79.0–83.9 4.91 pts — No
85% 78.6–83.8 79.3–83.6 4.29 pts — No
80% 78.9–83.5 79.5–83.3 3.82 pts — No
75% 79.2–83.3 79.7–83.1 3.43 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — GS at CON — Actual: GS 89, CON 64
Level GS range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 77.8–85.1 78.4–85.0 6.64 pts — No
90% 78.2–84.6 78.6–84.0 5.36 pts — No
85% 79.0–84.2 78.9–83.2 4.17 pts — No
80% 79.2–84.0 79.0–82.9 3.76 pts — No
75% 79.5–84.0 79.2–82.6 3.08 pts — No