Clay's Almanac
WNBA · September 24, 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

Indiana Fever at Minnesota Lynx

IND 66 – MIN 86

September 24, 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 IND at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

IND — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Vince Chambers
IND 89.2–94.9 MIN 83.7–89.3 Overlap 0.11 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.6 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.4–94.4 MIN 84.9–89.1 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.6 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.5–93.9 MIN 85.5–88.8 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.6 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–93.7 MIN 85.8–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.6 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–93.5 MIN 86.0–88.4 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.6 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
31.62
p-value
9.22e-108

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
IND 88.7–94.9 MIN 84.2–90.1 Overlap 1.4 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 89.2–94.4 MIN 84.7–89.6 Overlap 0.42 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.5–94.1 MIN 85.0–89.3 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–93.8 MIN 85.2–89.1 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 90.0–93.6 MIN 85.4–88.9 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 4.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
32.38
p-value
1.91e-111

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
IND 88.1–94.8 MIN 84.0–89.6 Overlap 1.48 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 88.7–94.2 MIN 84.9–89.1 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.0–93.9 MIN 85.2–88.8 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–93.6 MIN 85.3–88.6 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.5–93.4 MIN 85.6–88.3 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
30.59
p-value
7.94e-104

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
IND 89.3–94.1 MIN 85.1–89.3 Overlap 0.06 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.5–93.5 MIN 85.4–88.7 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.6–93.2 MIN 85.7–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–93.0 MIN 85.9–88.4 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 90.0–92.8 MIN 85.9–88.2 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.0) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
36.38
p-value
1.36e-124

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
IND 87.6–94.2 MIN 84.3–90.0 Overlap 2.36 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 88.2–93.7 MIN 84.8–89.5 Overlap 1.37 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 88.5–93.4 MIN 85.0–89.2 Overlap 0.73 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 88.8–93.1 MIN 85.3–89.0 Overlap 0.23 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.0–92.9 MIN 85.5–88.8 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.9) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.1) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
25.83
p-value
3.60e-85

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
IND 88.6–93.5 MIN 84.2–89.0 Overlap 0.4 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 88.8–93.2 MIN 84.6–88.6 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.1 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 88.9–92.7 MIN 84.9–88.4 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.2–92.3 MIN 85.1–88.2 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–92.1 MIN 85.2–88.0 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 90.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
33.09
p-value
1.64e-112

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
IND 87.9–94.3 MIN 83.9–89.6 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 88.4–93.8 MIN 84.4–89.1 Overlap 0.74 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 88.7–93.5 MIN 84.7–88.8 Overlap 0.1 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.0–93.2 MIN 84.9–88.6 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.2–93.0 MIN 85.1–88.4 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
30.12
p-value
2.66e-102

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
IND 88.7–95.7 MIN 84.4–89.4 Overlap 0.61 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.1–95.1 MIN 84.8–88.9 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–94.2 MIN 85.0–88.7 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.6–93.5 MIN 85.2–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.9–93.2 MIN 85.4–88.3 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
31.04
p-value
7.55e-100

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
IND 88.9–94.9 MIN 84.8–89.2 Overlap 0.27 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.1–94.3 MIN 85.2–88.9 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–93.6 MIN 85.4–88.3 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.6–93.2 MIN 85.5–88.1 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.6–93.0 MIN 85.6–88.0 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
32.95
p-value
2.41e-109

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
IND 88.5–95.1 MIN 84.8–90.0 Overlap 1.55 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 89.2–93.9 MIN 85.2–89.3 Overlap 0.08 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.4–93.4 MIN 85.6–88.7 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.7–93.1 MIN 85.7–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–92.9 MIN 85.8–88.3 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 4.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
30.47
p-value
1.68e-102

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
IND 88.2–94.5 MIN 84.0–89.7 Overlap 1.41 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

IND 88.7–94.0 MIN 84.5–89.2 Overlap 0.47 pts Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

IND 89.1–93.7 MIN 84.8–88.9 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.5 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–93.4 MIN 85.0–88.7 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.5–93.2 MIN 85.2–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.3) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 4.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
31.73
p-value
1.49e-108

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
IND 88.6–94.8 MIN 83.3–88.5 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 5.4 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.0–94.3 MIN 83.9–88.0 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 5.4 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.3–94.0 MIN 84.1–87.8 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 5.4 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.6–93.6 MIN 84.4–87.6 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 5.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

IND 89.8–93.4 MIN 84.6–87.4 No overlap Actual: IND 66, MIN 86

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Indiana Fever (avg. 91.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.0) — by 5.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
35.58
p-value
1.83e-120

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 — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 89.2–94.9 83.7–89.3 0.11 pts — No
90% 89.4–94.4 84.9–89.1 — pts — No
85% 89.5–93.9 85.5–88.8 — pts — No
80% 89.8–93.7 85.8–88.5 — pts — No
75% 89.8–93.5 86.0–88.4 — pts — No
Reg — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.7–94.9 84.2–90.1 1.4 pts — No
90% 89.2–94.4 84.7–89.6 0.42 pts — No
85% 89.5–94.1 85.0–89.3 — pts — No
80% 89.8–93.8 85.2–89.1 — pts — No
75% 90.0–93.6 85.4–88.9 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.1–94.8 84.0–89.6 1.48 pts — No
90% 88.7–94.2 84.9–89.1 0.46 pts — No
85% 89.0–93.9 85.2–88.8 — pts — No
80% 89.3–93.6 85.3–88.6 — pts — No
75% 89.5–93.4 85.6–88.3 — pts — No
Kevin — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 89.3–94.1 85.1–89.3 0.06 pts — No
90% 89.5–93.5 85.4–88.7 — pts — No
85% 89.6–93.2 85.7–88.5 — pts — No
80% 89.8–93.0 85.9–88.4 — pts — No
75% 90.0–92.8 85.9–88.2 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 87.6–94.2 84.3–90.0 2.36 pts — No
90% 88.2–93.7 84.8–89.5 1.37 pts — No
85% 88.5–93.4 85.0–89.2 0.73 pts — No
80% 88.8–93.1 85.3–89.0 0.23 pts — No
75% 89.0–92.9 85.5–88.8 — pts — No
Ice — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.6–93.5 84.2–89.0 0.4 pts — No
90% 88.8–93.2 84.6–88.6 — pts — No
85% 88.9–92.7 84.9–88.4 — pts — No
80% 89.2–92.3 85.1–88.2 — pts — No
75% 89.3–92.1 85.2–88.0 — pts — No
Jamal — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 87.9–94.3 83.9–89.6 1.71 pts — No
90% 88.4–93.8 84.4–89.1 0.74 pts — No
85% 88.7–93.5 84.7–88.8 0.1 pts — No
80% 89.0–93.2 84.9–88.6 — pts — No
75% 89.2–93.0 85.1–88.4 — pts — No
Jordan — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.7–95.7 84.4–89.4 0.61 pts — No
90% 89.1–95.1 84.8–88.9 — pts — No
85% 89.3–94.2 85.0–88.7 — pts — No
80% 89.6–93.5 85.2–88.5 — pts — No
75% 89.9–93.2 85.4–88.3 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.9–94.9 84.8–89.2 0.27 pts — No
90% 89.1–94.3 85.2–88.9 — pts — No
85% 89.3–93.6 85.4–88.3 — pts — No
80% 89.6–93.2 85.5–88.1 — pts — No
75% 89.6–93.0 85.6–88.0 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.5–95.1 84.8–90.0 1.55 pts — No
90% 89.2–93.9 85.2–89.3 0.08 pts — No
85% 89.4–93.4 85.6–88.7 — pts — No
80% 89.7–93.1 85.7–88.5 — pts — No
75% 89.8–92.9 85.8–88.3 — pts — No
Lexi — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.2–94.5 84.0–89.7 1.41 pts — No
90% 88.7–94.0 84.5–89.2 0.47 pts — No
85% 89.1–93.7 84.8–88.9 — pts — No
80% 89.3–93.4 85.0–88.7 — pts — No
75% 89.5–93.2 85.2–88.5 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — IND at MIN — Actual: IND 66, MIN 86
Level IND range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 88.6–94.8 83.3–88.5 — pts — No
90% 89.0–94.3 83.9–88.0 — pts — No
85% 89.3–94.0 84.1–87.8 — pts — No
80% 89.6–93.6 84.4–87.6 — pts — No
75% 89.8–93.4 84.6–87.4 — pts — No