Clay's Almanac
WNBA · September 20, 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
NFL
Log in Join

← Back to WNBA

Minnesota Lynx at Connecticut Sun

MIN 101 – CON 89

September 20, 2026 · Final

Vince Chambers

Best model for this game

Vince Chambers
All models: 2-0
Prediction ranges

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, each team scored inside its band below — this is about where the final score lands, not a claim about the average.

Confidence level for MIN at CON

All 2 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: MIN 101, CON 89
Vince Chambers Tol Warning
MIN 84.0–91.7 CON 68.4–86.3 Overlap 2.37 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.4) — by 10.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.6–91.1 CON 69.8–84.9 Overlap 0.39 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.4) — by 10.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 84.9–90.7 CON 70.7–84.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.4) — by 10.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.2–90.4 CON 71.4–83.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.4) — by 10.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 85.5–90.1 CON 72.0–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.4) — by 10.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
12.16
p-value
3.77e-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.

Reg Tol Warning
MIN 79.6–97.5 CON 72.8–85.2 Overlap 5.6 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.0) — by 9.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 81.0–96.1 CON 73.8–84.3 Overlap 3.25 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.0) — by 9.6 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

MIN 81.9–95.2 CON 74.4–83.6 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.0) — by 9.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 82.6–94.5 CON 74.9–83.2 Overlap 0.52 pts Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.0) — by 9.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 83.2–93.9 CON 75.3–82.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 101, CON 89

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.6) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 79.0) — by 9.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
9.97
p-value
1.91e-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 — MIN at CON — Actual: MIN 101, CON 89
Level MIN range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.0–91.7 68.4–86.3 2.37 pts Yes No
90% 84.6–91.1 69.8–84.9 0.39 pts Yes No
85% 84.9–90.7 70.7–84.0 — pts Yes No
80% 85.2–90.4 71.4–83.3 — pts Yes No
75% 85.5–90.1 72.0–82.7 — pts Yes No
Reg — MIN at CON — Actual: MIN 101, CON 89
Level MIN range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.6–97.5 72.8–85.2 5.6 pts Yes No
90% 81.0–96.1 73.8–84.3 3.25 pts Yes No
85% 81.9–95.2 74.4–83.6 1.71 pts Yes No
80% 82.6–94.5 74.9–83.2 0.52 pts Yes No
75% 83.2–93.9 75.3–82.7 — pts Yes No