Clay's Almanac
WNBA · August 30, 2026
Almanac — change team skin

Repaints the site's chrome in a team's colours. Predictions, grades and the colours on each game card are unchanged.

Almanac
NBA
WNBA
Log in Join

← Back to WNBA

Minnesota Lynx at Atlanta Dream

MIN 81 – ATL 89

August 30, 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 MIN at ATL

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model ATL — one dot per model Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Vince Chambers
MIN 86.5–92.4 ATL 88.9–94.7 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.0–91.9 ATL 89.2–93.7 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.3–91.6 ATL 89.4–93.3 Overlap 2.23 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.5–91.4 ATL 89.5–92.9 Overlap 1.85 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.7–91.2 ATL 89.6–92.9 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.5) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-11.48
p-value
1.67e-25

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

Reg
MIN 86.2–92.7 ATL 86.5–94.4 Overlap 6.17 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–92.1 ATL 86.8–93.8 Overlap 5.35 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.0–91.8 ATL 87.6–93.6 Overlap 4.2 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.3–91.5 ATL 88.1–93.3 Overlap 3.44 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.5–91.3 ATL 88.6–93.0 Overlap 2.76 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.4) — by 1.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-6.32
p-value
1.00e-09

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

Dr. Wallace
MIN 87.0–92.1 ATL 85.5–93.8 Overlap 5.12 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.2–91.4 ATL 86.0–93.3 Overlap 4.21 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.3–91.0 ATL 86.1–92.8 Overlap 3.68 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.4–90.6 ATL 86.3–92.6 Overlap 3.21 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.6–90.3 ATL 86.7–92.2 Overlap 2.74 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 89.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-4.17
p-value
4.18e-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.

Kevin
MIN 85.9–92.0 ATL 85.2–93.7 Overlap 6.14 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.4–91.5 ATL 85.5–93.3 Overlap 5.15 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–91.2 ATL 85.8–92.9 Overlap 4.51 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.9–91.0 ATL 86.0–92.7 Overlap 4.01 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.1–90.7 ATL 86.2–92.4 Overlap 3.6 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.9) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-2.42
p-value
1.64e-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
MIN 86.2–92.5 ATL 85.0–92.8 Overlap 6.33 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.6–91.6 ATL 85.3–92.2 Overlap 4.93 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.8–91.3 ATL 85.6–91.8 Overlap 4.51 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.0–91.0 ATL 85.8–91.4 Overlap 4.02 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.1–90.9 ATL 86.0–91.0 Overlap 3.8 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.7) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.4) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
1.40
p-value
1.64e-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.

Ice
MIN 86.3–91.6 ATL 85.3–93.7 Overlap 5.37 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.4–91.0 ATL 85.4–92.9 Overlap 4.62 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–90.3 ATL 85.5–92.3 Overlap 3.65 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.9–90.1 ATL 85.8–91.7 Overlap 3.23 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.9–90.0 ATL 85.8–91.4 Overlap 3.04 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.0) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
1.66
p-value
9.81e-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
MIN 86.2–91.8 ATL 85.1–92.9 Overlap 5.6 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.5–90.3 ATL 85.3–92.3 Overlap 3.87 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.6–90.1 ATL 85.5–91.6 Overlap 3.5 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–89.9 ATL 85.5–91.1 Overlap 3.25 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.8–89.8 ATL 85.6–90.3 Overlap 2.98 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
3.64
p-value
3.26e-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
MIN 86.5–91.0 ATL 84.7–92.6 Overlap 4.52 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–90.3 ATL 85.1–91.0 Overlap 3.65 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.9–89.9 ATL 85.3–90.5 Overlap 2.99 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.9–89.6 ATL 85.5–89.7 Overlap 2.67 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 87.0–89.5 ATL 85.6–88.8 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.1) — by 1.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
6.16
p-value
2.80e-09

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

Darren "Dimes" Lin
MIN 86.4–91.2 ATL 84.8–92.6 Overlap 4.78 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.6–90.6 ATL 85.1–91.3 Overlap 4.04 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–90.3 ATL 85.2–91.2 Overlap 3.6 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.0–90.0 ATL 85.3–90.5 Overlap 3.02 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.1–89.8 ATL 85.4–89.9 Overlap 2.75 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.2) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.2) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
4.89
p-value
1.78e-06

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

Maya Jefferson
MIN 85.7–91.0 ATL 84.8–94.2 Overlap 5.34 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.1–90.6 ATL 85.2–92.2 Overlap 4.48 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.4–90.3 ATL 85.4–91.9 Overlap 3.92 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.6–90.1 ATL 85.6–91.3 Overlap 3.49 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.8–89.9 ATL 85.7–91.0 Overlap 3.13 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) over Atlanta Dream (avg. 87.7) — 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
2.83
p-value
5.06e-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
MIN 85.9–90.6 ATL 85.4–94.0 Overlap 4.78 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.3–90.3 ATL 85.8–93.1 Overlap 4.01 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.5–90.0 ATL 85.9–92.7 Overlap 3.51 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–89.8 ATL 86.0–91.7 Overlap 3.12 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.9–89.7 ATL 86.1–91.4 Overlap 2.8 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.3) — by under a point. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-1.12
p-value
2.62e-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
MIN 86.1–91.5 ATL 83.6–94.9 Overlap 5.42 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.4–91.2 ATL 84.2–94.3 Overlap 4.73 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.6–90.7 ATL 84.4–93.9 Overlap 4.05 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 86.7–90.4 ATL 84.6–93.6 Overlap 3.68 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) — by under a point. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 87.0–90.3 ATL 84.6–93.3 Overlap 3.3 pts Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 89.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.5) — 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
-2.17
p-value
3.12e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.5–92.4 88.9–94.7 3.49 pts — No
90% 87.0–91.9 89.2–93.7 2.74 pts — No
85% 87.3–91.6 89.4–93.3 2.23 pts — No
80% 87.5–91.4 89.5–92.9 1.85 pts — No
75% 87.7–91.2 89.6–92.9 1.56 pts — No
Reg — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.2–92.7 86.5–94.4 6.17 pts — No
90% 86.7–92.1 86.8–93.8 5.35 pts — No
85% 87.0–91.8 87.6–93.6 4.2 pts — No
80% 87.3–91.5 88.1–93.3 3.44 pts — No
75% 87.5–91.3 88.6–93.0 2.76 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 87.0–92.1 85.5–93.8 5.12 pts — No
90% 87.2–91.4 86.0–93.3 4.21 pts — No
85% 87.3–91.0 86.1–92.8 3.68 pts — No
80% 87.4–90.6 86.3–92.6 3.21 pts — No
75% 87.6–90.3 86.7–92.2 2.74 pts — No
Kevin — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–92.0 85.2–93.7 6.14 pts — No
90% 86.4–91.5 85.5–93.3 5.15 pts — No
85% 86.7–91.2 85.8–92.9 4.51 pts — No
80% 86.9–91.0 86.0–92.7 4.01 pts — No
75% 87.1–90.7 86.2–92.4 3.6 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.2–92.5 85.0–92.8 6.33 pts — No
90% 86.6–91.6 85.3–92.2 4.93 pts — No
85% 86.8–91.3 85.6–91.8 4.51 pts — No
80% 87.0–91.0 85.8–91.4 4.02 pts — No
75% 87.1–90.9 86.0–91.0 3.8 pts — No
Ice — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.3–91.6 85.3–93.7 5.37 pts — No
90% 86.4–91.0 85.4–92.9 4.62 pts — No
85% 86.7–90.3 85.5–92.3 3.65 pts — No
80% 86.9–90.1 85.8–91.7 3.23 pts — No
75% 86.9–90.0 85.8–91.4 3.04 pts — No
Jamal — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.2–91.8 85.1–92.9 5.6 pts — No
90% 86.5–90.3 85.3–92.3 3.87 pts — No
85% 86.6–90.1 85.5–91.6 3.5 pts — No
80% 86.7–89.9 85.5–91.1 3.25 pts — No
75% 86.8–89.8 85.6–90.3 2.98 pts — No
Jordan — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.5–91.0 84.7–92.6 4.52 pts — No
90% 86.7–90.3 85.1–91.0 3.65 pts — No
85% 86.9–89.9 85.3–90.5 2.99 pts — No
80% 86.9–89.6 85.5–89.7 2.67 pts — No
75% 87.0–89.5 85.6–88.8 1.76 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.4–91.2 84.8–92.6 4.78 pts — No
90% 86.6–90.6 85.1–91.3 4.04 pts — No
85% 86.7–90.3 85.2–91.2 3.6 pts — No
80% 87.0–90.0 85.3–90.5 3.02 pts — No
75% 87.1–89.8 85.4–89.9 2.75 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.7–91.0 84.8–94.2 5.34 pts — No
90% 86.1–90.6 85.2–92.2 4.48 pts — No
85% 86.4–90.3 85.4–91.9 3.92 pts — No
80% 86.6–90.1 85.6–91.3 3.49 pts — No
75% 86.8–89.9 85.7–91.0 3.13 pts — No
Lexi — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.9–90.6 85.4–94.0 4.78 pts — No
90% 86.3–90.3 85.8–93.1 4.01 pts — No
85% 86.5–90.0 85.9–92.7 3.51 pts — No
80% 86.7–89.8 86.0–91.7 3.12 pts — No
75% 86.9–89.7 86.1–91.4 2.8 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at ATL — Actual: MIN 81, ATL 89
Level MIN range ATL range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.1–91.5 83.6–94.9 5.42 pts — No
90% 86.4–91.2 84.2–94.3 4.73 pts — No
85% 86.6–90.7 84.4–93.9 4.05 pts — No
80% 86.7–90.4 84.6–93.6 3.68 pts — No
75% 87.0–90.3 84.6–93.3 3.3 pts — No