Clay's Almanac
WNBA · September 22, 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 Indiana Fever

MIN 77 – IND 96

September 22, 2026 · Final

Coach Sarah Watanabe

Best model for this game

Coach Sarah Watanabe
All models: 12-0
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 IND

All 12 models’ predicted scores

MIN — one dot per model IND — one dot per model Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Vince Chambers
MIN 84.9–90.7 IND 88.7–94.3 Overlap 1.95 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.2 IND 89.2–93.9 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–89.9 IND 89.5–93.6 Overlap 0.45 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.9–89.7 IND 89.7–93.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.5 IND 89.9–93.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
-27.37
p-value
1.83e-91

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 84.9–91.1 IND 88.5–94.9 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.6 IND 89.0–94.4 Overlap 1.61 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–90.3 IND 89.3–94.1 Overlap 0.94 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.9–90.0 IND 89.6–93.8 Overlap 0.43 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.2–89.8 IND 89.8–93.6 Overlap 0.01 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 88.0) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
-24.47
p-value
9.91e-80

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 85.4–91.3 IND 88.7–94.5 Overlap 2.63 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–90.4 IND 89.3–93.7 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 86.2–89.9 IND 89.4–93.3 Overlap 0.49 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.3–89.6 IND 89.5–93.1 Overlap 0.12 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.3–89.3 IND 89.6–92.9 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.2) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
-22.88
p-value
3.56e-73

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 85.6–90.8 IND 89.1–94.1 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–89.9 IND 89.5–93.8 Overlap 0.43 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–89.5 IND 89.7–93.6 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.4 IND 89.9–93.3 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.2–89.2 IND 90.0–93.1 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
-27.17
p-value
1.17e-90

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 84.9–90.8 IND 87.9–94.7 Overlap 2.9 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.4–90.3 IND 88.4–94.1 Overlap 1.87 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.7–90.0 IND 88.8–93.8 Overlap 1.2 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–89.7 IND 89.1–93.5 Overlap 0.68 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.1–89.5 IND 89.3–93.3 Overlap 0.26 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
-22.80
p-value
2.05e-72

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 84.4–90.0 IND 87.7–93.7 Overlap 2.34 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.8–89.6 IND 88.2–93.2 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.1–89.3 IND 88.5–92.9 Overlap 0.8 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.3–89.1 IND 88.7–92.6 Overlap 0.33 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.5–88.9 IND 88.9–92.4 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
-24.93
p-value
1.29e-81

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 84.4–90.4 IND 88.0–93.9 Overlap 2.43 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.9–89.9 IND 88.4–93.4 Overlap 1.47 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.2–89.6 IND 88.7–93.1 Overlap 0.84 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.5–89.4 IND 89.0–92.9 Overlap 0.36 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.7–89.2 IND 89.2–92.7 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.4) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
-24.76
p-value
5.60e-81

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 85.0–90.4 IND 88.4–94.3 Overlap 1.98 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–89.9 IND 88.8–93.8 Overlap 1.04 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–89.6 IND 89.1–93.5 Overlap 0.44 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–89.3 IND 89.4–93.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.2–89.1 IND 89.6–93.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.6) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
-26.57
p-value
2.77e-88

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 85.1–90.3 IND 88.5–94.1 Overlap 1.84 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.5–89.9 IND 89.0–93.7 Overlap 0.96 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 85.8–89.6 IND 89.3–93.4 Overlap 0.39 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–89.4 IND 89.5–93.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.1–89.3 IND 89.7–93.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
-27.68
p-value
1.35e-92

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 85.4–90.8 IND 88.5–94.2 Overlap 2.26 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.8–90.0 IND 89.0–93.8 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–89.5 IND 89.3–93.5 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.1–89.3 IND 89.5–93.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.3–89.1 IND 89.7–93.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.7) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
-26.99
p-value
5.47e-90

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 85.1–91.0 IND 88.8–94.0 Overlap 2.25 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) — by 3.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.6–90.3 IND 88.9–93.6 Overlap 1.38 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) — by 3.6 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 85.9–89.6 IND 89.1–93.3 Overlap 0.53 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) — by 3.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 86.0–89.3 IND 89.4–93.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) — by 3.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 86.0–89.0 IND 89.5–92.8 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.5) — by 3.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
-24.88
p-value
1.78e-81

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 83.7–89.5 IND 88.3–94.2 Overlap 1.19 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

MIN 84.2–89.1 IND 88.8–93.8 Overlap 0.25 pts Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

MIN 84.5–88.7 IND 89.1–93.5 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 84.7–88.5 IND 89.4–93.2 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

MIN 84.9–88.3 IND 89.6–93.0 No overlap Actual: MIN 77, IND 96

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
-33.31
p-value
3.15e-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.

View as table
Vince Chambers — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–90.7 88.7–94.3 1.95 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.2 89.2–93.9 1.04 pts — No
85% 85.7–89.9 89.5–93.6 0.45 pts — No
80% 85.9–89.7 89.7–93.3 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.5 89.9–93.2 — pts — No
Reg — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–91.1 88.5–94.9 2.63 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.6 89.0–94.4 1.61 pts — No
85% 85.7–90.3 89.3–94.1 0.94 pts — No
80% 85.9–90.0 89.6–93.8 0.43 pts — No
75% 86.2–89.8 89.8–93.6 0.01 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–91.3 88.7–94.5 2.63 pts — No
90% 85.8–90.4 89.3–93.7 1.05 pts — No
85% 86.2–89.9 89.4–93.3 0.49 pts — No
80% 86.3–89.6 89.5–93.1 0.12 pts — No
75% 86.3–89.3 89.6–92.9 — pts — No
Kevin — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.6–90.8 89.1–94.1 1.76 pts — No
90% 85.8–89.9 89.5–93.8 0.43 pts — No
85% 86.0–89.5 89.7–93.6 — pts — No
80% 86.1–89.4 89.9–93.3 — pts — No
75% 86.2–89.2 90.0–93.1 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.9–90.8 87.9–94.7 2.9 pts — No
90% 85.4–90.3 88.4–94.1 1.87 pts — No
85% 85.7–90.0 88.8–93.8 1.2 pts — No
80% 85.9–89.7 89.1–93.5 0.68 pts — No
75% 86.1–89.5 89.3–93.3 0.26 pts — No
Ice — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–90.0 87.7–93.7 2.34 pts — No
90% 84.8–89.6 88.2–93.2 1.41 pts — No
85% 85.1–89.3 88.5–92.9 0.8 pts — No
80% 85.3–89.1 88.7–92.6 0.33 pts — No
75% 85.5–88.9 88.9–92.4 — pts — No
Jamal — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 84.4–90.4 88.0–93.9 2.43 pts — No
90% 84.9–89.9 88.4–93.4 1.47 pts — No
85% 85.2–89.6 88.7–93.1 0.84 pts — No
80% 85.5–89.4 89.0–92.9 0.36 pts — No
75% 85.7–89.2 89.2–92.7 — pts — No
Jordan — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.0–90.4 88.4–94.3 1.98 pts — No
90% 85.6–89.9 88.8–93.8 1.04 pts — No
85% 85.8–89.6 89.1–93.5 0.44 pts — No
80% 86.0–89.3 89.4–93.2 — pts — No
75% 86.2–89.1 89.6–93.0 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.1–90.3 88.5–94.1 1.84 pts — No
90% 85.5–89.9 89.0–93.7 0.96 pts — No
85% 85.8–89.6 89.3–93.4 0.39 pts — No
80% 86.0–89.4 89.5–93.2 — pts — No
75% 86.1–89.3 89.7–93.0 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.4–90.8 88.5–94.2 2.26 pts — No
90% 85.8–90.0 89.0–93.8 0.99 pts — No
85% 86.0–89.5 89.3–93.5 0.19 pts — No
80% 86.1–89.3 89.5–93.2 — pts — No
75% 86.3–89.1 89.7–93.0 — pts — No
Lexi — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.1–91.0 88.8–94.0 2.25 pts — No
90% 85.6–90.3 88.9–93.6 1.38 pts — No
85% 85.9–89.6 89.1–93.3 0.53 pts — No
80% 86.0–89.3 89.4–93.0 — pts — No
75% 86.0–89.0 89.5–92.8 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — MIN at IND — Actual: MIN 77, IND 96
Level MIN range IND range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 83.7–89.5 88.3–94.2 1.19 pts — No
90% 84.2–89.1 88.8–93.8 0.25 pts — No
85% 84.5–88.7 89.1–93.5 — pts — No
80% 84.7–88.5 89.4–93.2 — pts — No
75% 84.9–88.3 89.6–93.0 — pts — No