Clay's Almanac
WNBA · September 27, 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

New York Liberty at Minnesota Lynx

NY 91 – MIN 75

September 27, 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 NY at MIN

All 12 models’ predicted scores

NY — one dot per model MIN — one dot per model Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Vince Chambers
NY 86.8–91.1 MIN 84.8–88.9 Overlap 2.09 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.0–90.5 MIN 85.3–88.6 Overlap 1.62 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.2–90.2 MIN 85.5–88.5 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–90.0 MIN 85.7–88.3 Overlap 0.97 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 87.5–89.8 MIN 85.7–88.2 Overlap 0.71 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.9) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic
15.52
p-value
9.56e-43

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
NY 86.6–92.0 MIN 84.4–90.0 Overlap 3.37 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 89.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

NY 86.8–91.4 MIN 84.8–89.5 Overlap 2.73 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 89.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–91.1 MIN 85.1–89.2 Overlap 2.1 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 89.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–90.9 MIN 85.4–89.0 Overlap 1.72 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 89.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.5–90.5 MIN 85.5–88.8 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 89.1) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 87.2) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Reg (#2)
t-statistic
14.19
p-value
3.37e-37

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
NY 86.8–92.5 MIN 85.1–89.3 Overlap 2.55 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.9–91.0 MIN 85.2–88.6 Overlap 1.71 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–90.7 MIN 85.3–88.3 Overlap 1.26 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.2–90.5 MIN 85.4–88.2 Overlap 1.02 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.4–90.3 MIN 85.5–88.1 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic
14.99
p-value
4.22e-40

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
NY 86.6–91.1 MIN 84.8–89.6 Overlap 2.95 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.8–90.6 MIN 85.1–89.0 Overlap 2.18 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–90.3 MIN 85.3–88.6 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.4–90.0 MIN 85.5–88.3 Overlap 0.87 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 87.5–89.9 MIN 85.6–88.0 Overlap 0.5 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.8) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Kevin (#4)
t-statistic
15.44
p-value
2.26e-42

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
NY 86.1–91.3 MIN 84.8–89.5 Overlap 3.34 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

NY 86.5–90.4 MIN 85.1–89.0 Overlap 2.5 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.7–90.2 MIN 85.2–88.7 Overlap 2.03 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.8–90.0 MIN 85.4–88.4 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.9–89.7 MIN 85.5–88.0 Overlap 1.05 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.4) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.7 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

Show the math
Model
Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic
12.96
p-value
3.19e-32

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
NY 86.2–91.3 MIN 84.2–89.1 Overlap 2.88 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.8–91.0 MIN 84.9–88.8 Overlap 1.91 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.0–90.5 MIN 85.2–88.5 Overlap 1.45 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–90.2 MIN 85.3–88.3 Overlap 1.16 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–89.9 MIN 85.5–88.1 Overlap 0.81 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.6) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Ice (#6)
t-statistic
15.19
p-value
2.45e-41

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
NY 86.7–91.3 MIN 84.2–88.9 Overlap 2.18 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.8–91.0 MIN 84.5–88.5 Overlap 1.69 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.9–90.7 MIN 84.8–88.2 Overlap 1.29 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–90.3 MIN 85.0–88.0 Overlap 0.75 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 87.4–90.1 MIN 85.1–87.9 Overlap 0.51 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.5) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.5) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jamal (#7)
t-statistic
17.54
p-value
3.32e-51

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
NY 86.6–91.7 MIN 84.4–89.1 Overlap 2.41 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.9–90.9 MIN 84.7–88.7 Overlap 1.8 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–90.7 MIN 85.0–88.4 Overlap 1.36 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.2–90.4 MIN 85.2–88.2 Overlap 1.0 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.4–90.2 MIN 85.3–88.1 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Jordan (#8)
t-statistic
16.06
p-value
1.08e-44

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
NY 86.8–92.1 MIN 84.6–89.7 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–91.1 MIN 85.1–88.8 Overlap 1.67 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–90.7 MIN 85.3–88.2 Overlap 0.89 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 87.4–90.3 MIN 85.5–88.0 Overlap 0.66 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

NY 87.4–90.0 MIN 85.6–87.9 Overlap 0.46 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.7) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic
15.89
p-value
3.64e-44

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
NY 86.3–91.9 MIN 84.1–89.3 Overlap 3.09 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

NY 86.9–90.9 MIN 84.5–88.9 Overlap 2.04 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.0–90.4 MIN 84.8–88.7 Overlap 1.63 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.2–90.1 MIN 85.0–88.4 Overlap 1.25 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.8 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–89.9 MIN 85.2–88.3 Overlap 0.99 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.8 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic
13.96
p-value
3.71e-36

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
NY 86.6–91.2 MIN 84.1–90.0 Overlap 3.38 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap almost entirely, so one game could go either way.

NY 86.9–90.8 MIN 84.6–89.2 Overlap 2.32 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.0–90.5 MIN 84.8–88.7 Overlap 1.76 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.1–90.2 MIN 85.1–88.5 Overlap 1.35 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.9 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 87.3–89.9 MIN 85.4–88.2 Overlap 0.93 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 88.6) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 86.7) — by 1.9 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Lexi (#11)
t-statistic
14.12
p-value
6.51e-37

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
NY 85.2–90.3 MIN 83.6–88.1 Overlap 2.92 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 87.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 85.6–89.9 MIN 83.9–87.4 Overlap 1.87 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 87.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 85.8–89.7 MIN 84.1–87.3 Overlap 1.46 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 87.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.1–89.4 MIN 84.3–87.1 Overlap 1.09 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 87.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

NY 86.2–89.3 MIN 84.4–86.9 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: NY 91, MIN 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans New York Liberty (avg. 87.8) over Minnesota Lynx (avg. 85.6) — by 2.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math
Model
Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic
17.82
p-value
1.67e-52

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 — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.8–91.1 84.8–88.9 2.09 pts — No
90% 87.0–90.5 85.3–88.6 1.62 pts — No
85% 87.2–90.2 85.5–88.5 1.26 pts — No
80% 87.3–90.0 85.7–88.3 0.97 pts — No
75% 87.5–89.8 85.7–88.2 0.71 pts — No
Reg — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.6–92.0 84.4–90.0 3.37 pts — No
90% 86.8–91.4 84.8–89.5 2.73 pts — No
85% 87.1–91.1 85.1–89.2 2.1 pts — No
80% 87.3–90.9 85.4–89.0 1.72 pts — No
75% 87.5–90.5 85.5–88.8 1.26 pts — No
Dr. Wallace — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.8–92.5 85.1–89.3 2.55 pts — No
90% 86.9–91.0 85.2–88.6 1.71 pts — No
85% 87.1–90.7 85.3–88.3 1.26 pts — No
80% 87.2–90.5 85.4–88.2 1.02 pts — No
75% 87.4–90.3 85.5–88.1 0.69 pts — No
Kevin — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.6–91.1 84.8–89.6 2.95 pts — No
90% 86.8–90.6 85.1–89.0 2.18 pts — No
85% 87.3–90.3 85.3–88.6 1.34 pts — No
80% 87.4–90.0 85.5–88.3 0.87 pts — No
75% 87.5–89.9 85.6–88.0 0.5 pts — No
Dr. Lila Shah — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.1–91.3 84.8–89.5 3.34 pts — No
90% 86.5–90.4 85.1–89.0 2.5 pts — No
85% 86.7–90.2 85.2–88.7 2.03 pts — No
80% 86.8–90.0 85.4–88.4 1.6 pts — No
75% 86.9–89.7 85.5–88.0 1.05 pts — No
Ice — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.2–91.3 84.2–89.1 2.88 pts — No
90% 86.8–91.0 84.9–88.8 1.91 pts — No
85% 87.0–90.5 85.2–88.5 1.45 pts — No
80% 87.1–90.2 85.3–88.3 1.16 pts — No
75% 87.3–89.9 85.5–88.1 0.81 pts — No
Jamal — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.7–91.3 84.2–88.9 2.18 pts — No
90% 86.8–91.0 84.5–88.5 1.69 pts — No
85% 86.9–90.7 84.8–88.2 1.29 pts — No
80% 87.3–90.3 85.0–88.0 0.75 pts — No
75% 87.4–90.1 85.1–87.9 0.51 pts — No
Jordan — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.6–91.7 84.4–89.1 2.41 pts — No
90% 86.9–90.9 84.7–88.7 1.8 pts — No
85% 87.1–90.7 85.0–88.4 1.36 pts — No
80% 87.2–90.4 85.2–88.2 1.0 pts — No
75% 87.4–90.2 85.3–88.1 0.69 pts — No
Darren "Dimes" Lin — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.8–92.1 84.6–89.7 2.92 pts — No
90% 87.1–91.1 85.1–88.8 1.67 pts — No
85% 87.3–90.7 85.3–88.2 0.89 pts — No
80% 87.4–90.3 85.5–88.0 0.66 pts — No
75% 87.4–90.0 85.6–87.9 0.46 pts — No
Maya Jefferson — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.3–91.9 84.1–89.3 3.09 pts — No
90% 86.9–90.9 84.5–88.9 2.04 pts — No
85% 87.0–90.4 84.8–88.7 1.63 pts — No
80% 87.2–90.1 85.0–88.4 1.25 pts — No
75% 87.3–89.9 85.2–88.3 0.99 pts — No
Lexi — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 86.6–91.2 84.1–90.0 3.38 pts — No
90% 86.9–90.8 84.6–89.2 2.32 pts — No
85% 87.0–90.5 84.8–88.7 1.76 pts — No
80% 87.1–90.2 85.1–88.5 1.35 pts — No
75% 87.3–89.9 85.4–88.2 0.93 pts — No
Coach Sarah Watanabe — NY at MIN — Actual: NY 91, MIN 75
Level NY range MIN range Overlap Tol Warning Actual landed in range?
95% 85.2–90.3 83.6–88.1 2.92 pts — No
90% 85.6–89.9 83.9–87.4 1.87 pts — No
85% 85.8–89.7 84.1–87.3 1.46 pts — No
80% 86.1–89.4 84.3–87.1 1.09 pts — No
75% 86.2–89.3 84.4–86.9 0.69 pts — No