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

Toronto Tempo at Connecticut Sun

TOR 81 – CON 95

September 24, 2026 · Final

Ice

Best model for this game

Ice
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 TOR at CON

All 12 models’ predicted scores

TOR — one dot per model CON — one dot per model Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Vince Chambers
TOR 80.4–84.8 CON 75.5–80.6 Overlap 0.19 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.9–84.0 CON 76.2–80.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–83.8 CON 76.7–80.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.6 CON 76.8–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.2–83.6 CON 77.0–79.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
30.23
p-value
1.22e-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.

Reg
TOR 80.5–84.8 CON 76.0–81.3 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.9–84.5 CON 76.5–80.9 Overlap 0.02 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 81.1–84.3 CON 76.9–80.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.3–84.1 CON 77.1–80.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.4–83.9 CON 77.4–80.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.7) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.8) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
30.84
p-value
2.91e-101

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
TOR 80.2–84.9 CON 75.5–80.8 Overlap 0.61 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.5–84.3 CON 76.5–80.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–83.9 CON 76.9–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–83.7 CON 77.2–80.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–83.5 CON 77.3–79.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
27.40
p-value
1.21e-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.

Kevin
TOR 79.8–84.7 CON 75.6–80.5 Overlap 0.65 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.2–84.3 CON 76.1–80.2 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.5–84.1 CON 76.6–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–83.9 CON 76.9–79.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–83.7 CON 77.3–79.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
32.67
p-value
1.17e-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.

Dr. Lila Shah
TOR 79.5–84.0 CON 75.7–80.5 Overlap 0.98 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 81.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.1) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.2–83.6 CON 76.2–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 81.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.1) — by 3.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.4–83.3 CON 76.3–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 81.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.1) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.6–83.1 CON 76.3–79.4 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 81.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.1) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–82.9 CON 76.5–79.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 81.8) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.1) — 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
28.12
p-value
4.58e-95

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
TOR 80.4–84.7 CON 76.2–80.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 95% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–84.3 CON 76.5–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.9–83.9 CON 77.0–80.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.9–83.7 CON 77.2–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.5 CON 77.5–79.6 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
31.67
p-value
4.21e-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.

Jamal
TOR 80.2–84.8 CON 75.3–80.4 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.6–84.2 CON 76.4–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–83.7 CON 76.6–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–83.6 CON 77.0–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.6 CON 77.1–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.9 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
32.13
p-value
1.27e-110

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
TOR 80.0–84.9 CON 75.3–80.4 Overlap 0.38 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 4.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.4–84.2 CON 76.2–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 4.0 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.7–84.0 CON 76.5–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 4.0 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–83.8 CON 76.8–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 4.0 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.7 CON 77.0–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 4.0 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
30.03
p-value
1.40e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin
TOR 80.3–85.2 CON 75.9–80.8 Overlap 0.45 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.6–84.3 CON 76.2–80.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.8 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–84.0 CON 76.6–80.2 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.7 CON 76.7–80.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.5 CON 77.0–79.8 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.5) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
29.20
p-value
4.02e-99

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
TOR 80.1–85.0 CON 76.4–80.6 Overlap 0.47 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.7–84.3 CON 76.7–80.2 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–84.0 CON 77.1–80.0 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.8 CON 77.3–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.1–83.7 CON 77.5–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.4) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.6) — by 3.7 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
31.55
p-value
2.03e-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.

Lexi
TOR 79.9–84.9 CON 75.9–81.0 Overlap 1.11 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

TOR 80.4–84.3 CON 76.3–80.6 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.6–83.8 CON 76.5–80.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.8 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.9–83.6 CON 76.7–80.1 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.8 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 81.0–83.3 CON 76.9–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 78.4) — by 3.8 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
30.92
p-value
5.89e-106

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
TOR 80.0–85.3 CON 74.3–80.2 Overlap 0.2 pts Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.6) — by 4.7 points. The ranges barely touch.

TOR 80.3–84.9 CON 75.0–79.9 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.6) — by 4.7 points. The 90% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.6–84.6 CON 75.2–79.7 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.6) — by 4.7 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.8–84.2 CON 75.4–79.5 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.6) — by 4.7 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

TOR 80.9–83.8 CON 75.6–79.3 No overlap Actual: TOR 81, CON 95

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Toronto Tempo (avg. 82.3) over Connecticut Sun (avg. 77.6) — 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
30.41
p-value
7.16e-103

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 — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–84.8 75.5–80.6 0.19 pts — No
90% 80.9–84.0 76.2–80.4 — pts — No
85% 81.0–83.8 76.7–80.0 — pts — No
80% 81.1–83.6 76.8–79.9 — pts — No
75% 81.2–83.6 77.0–79.8 — pts — No
Reg — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.5–84.8 76.0–81.3 0.77 pts — No
90% 80.9–84.5 76.5–80.9 0.02 pts — No
85% 81.1–84.3 76.9–80.7 — pts — No
80% 81.3–84.1 77.1–80.5 — pts — No
75% 81.4–83.9 77.4–80.4 — pts — No
Dr. Wallace — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–84.9 75.5–80.8 0.61 pts — No
90% 80.5–84.3 76.5–80.3 — pts — No
85% 80.7–83.9 76.9–80.1 — pts — No
80% 80.8–83.7 77.2–80.0 — pts — No
75% 81.0–83.5 77.3–79.8 — pts — No
Kevin — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.8–84.7 75.6–80.5 0.65 pts — No
90% 80.2–84.3 76.1–80.2 — pts — No
85% 80.5–84.1 76.6–79.9 — pts — No
80% 80.7–83.9 76.9–79.6 — pts — No
75% 80.8–83.7 77.3–79.4 — pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.5–84.0 75.7–80.5 0.98 pts — No
90% 80.2–83.6 76.2–80.1 — pts — No
85% 80.4–83.3 76.3–79.7 — pts — No
80% 80.6–83.1 76.3–79.4 — pts — No
75% 80.7–82.9 76.5–79.3 — pts — No
Ice — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.4–84.7 76.2–80.3 — pts — No
90% 80.7–84.3 76.5–80.1 — pts — No
85% 80.9–83.9 77.0–80.0 — pts — No
80% 80.9–83.7 77.2–79.7 — pts — No
75% 81.1–83.5 77.5–79.6 — pts — No
Jamal — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.2–84.8 75.3–80.4 0.18 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.2 76.4–80.1 — pts — No
85% 80.8–83.7 76.6–79.9 — pts — No
80% 81.0–83.6 77.0–79.7 — pts — No
75% 81.1–83.6 77.1–79.7 — pts — No
Jordan — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–84.9 75.3–80.4 0.38 pts — No
90% 80.4–84.2 76.2–80.1 — pts — No
85% 80.7–84.0 76.5–79.9 — pts — No
80% 81.0–83.8 76.8–79.9 — pts — No
75% 81.1–83.7 77.0–79.7 — pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.3–85.2 75.9–80.8 0.45 pts — No
90% 80.6–84.3 76.2–80.5 — pts — No
85% 80.8–84.0 76.6–80.2 — pts — No
80% 81.1–83.7 76.7–80.0 — pts — No
75% 81.1–83.5 77.0–79.8 — pts — No
Maya Jefferson — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.1–85.0 76.4–80.6 0.47 pts — No
90% 80.7–84.3 76.7–80.2 — pts — No
85% 80.8–84.0 77.1–80.0 — pts — No
80% 81.1–83.8 77.3–79.9 — pts — No
75% 81.1–83.7 77.5–79.7 — pts — No
Lexi — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 79.9–84.9 75.9–81.0 1.11 pts — No
90% 80.4–84.3 76.3–80.6 0.18 pts — No
85% 80.6–83.8 76.5–80.3 — pts — No
80% 80.9–83.6 76.7–80.1 — pts — No
75% 81.0–83.3 76.9–79.9 — pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — TOR at CON — Actual: TOR 81, CON 95
Level TOR range CON range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 80.0–85.3 74.3–80.2 0.2 pts — No
90% 80.3–84.9 75.0–79.9 — pts — No
85% 80.6–84.6 75.2–79.7 — pts — No
80% 80.8–84.2 75.4–79.5 — pts — No
75% 80.9–83.8 75.6–79.3 — pts — No