Clay's Almanac

Vince Chambers

ATL 88.7–94.4 WAS 86.0–90.3 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.1–93.9 WAS 86.5–90.0 Overlap 0.86 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–93.6 WAS 86.7–89.5 Overlap 0.05 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.7–93.4 WAS 86.8–89.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.9–93.2 WAS 87.0–89.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.5) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Vince Chambers (#1)
t-statistic: 28.15
p-value: 3.19e-94

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

ATL 88.4–94.3 WAS 85.6–90.7 Overlap 2.22 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.9–93.8 WAS 86.0–90.2 Overlap 1.34 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.2 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.2–93.5 WAS 86.3–90.0 Overlap 0.77 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–93.3 WAS 86.5–89.8 Overlap 0.34 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.2 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.6–93.1 WAS 86.6–89.6 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.2 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Reg (#2)
t-statistic: 24.91
p-value: 1.20e-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.

Dr. Wallace

ATL 88.5–94.2 WAS 86.1–90.1 Overlap 1.6 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.0–93.7 WAS 86.3–89.7 Overlap 0.71 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.3–93.4 WAS 86.4–89.5 Overlap 0.18 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.5–93.2 WAS 86.6–89.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.7–93.0 WAS 86.7–89.1 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Wallace (#3)
t-statistic: 28.41
p-value: 2.08e-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.

Kevin

ATL 88.8–94.4 WAS 85.8–90.5 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.2–93.9 WAS 86.1–90.1 Overlap 0.9 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.5–93.6 WAS 86.4–89.9 Overlap 0.35 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.7–93.4 WAS 86.6–89.7 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.4 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.9–93.2 WAS 86.7–89.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.6) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Kevin (#4)
t-statistic: 27.99
p-value: 1.15e-93

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

ATL 88.1–94.0 WAS 85.1–89.3 Overlap 1.19 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 86.9) — by 4.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.5–93.5 WAS 85.3–88.9 Overlap 0.32 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 86.9) — by 4.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 88.8–93.2 WAS 85.4–88.5 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 86.9) — by 4.1 points. The 85% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.1–93.0 WAS 85.5–88.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 86.9) — by 4.1 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.3–92.8 WAS 85.6–88.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.0) over Washington Mystics (avg. 86.9) — by 4.1 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Dr. Lila Shah (#5)
t-statistic: 32.02
p-value: 2.22e-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.

Ice

ATL 88.1–94.3 WAS 85.9–91.0 Overlap 2.94 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.6–93.8 WAS 86.2–90.2 Overlap 1.58 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.9–93.4 WAS 86.4–89.9 Overlap 1.03 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.1 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.2–93.2 WAS 86.5–89.8 Overlap 0.6 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–93.0 WAS 86.6–89.6 Overlap 0.24 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.2) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.1) — by 3.1 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Ice (#6)
t-statistic: 22.13
p-value: 2.92e-70

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

ATL 88.3–94.5 WAS 85.7–90.3 Overlap 2.0 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.8–94.0 WAS 86.0–89.9 Overlap 1.13 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.1–93.7 WAS 86.3–89.7 Overlap 0.57 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–93.4 WAS 86.5–89.5 Overlap 0.13 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.6–93.2 WAS 86.6–89.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Jamal (#7)
t-statistic: 26.30
p-value: 1.25e-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.

Jordan

ATL 88.4–94.4 WAS 85.5–90.2 Overlap 1.81 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.9–93.9 WAS 85.9–89.8 Overlap 0.95 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.2–93.6 WAS 86.1–89.6 Overlap 0.4 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.5 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–93.3 WAS 86.3–89.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.5 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.6–93.1 WAS 86.5–89.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.5 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Jordan (#8)
t-statistic: 27.64
p-value: 2.30e-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.

Darren "Dimes" Lin

ATL 88.2–94.4 WAS 86.1–90.8 Overlap 2.6 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.7–93.9 WAS 86.4–90.3 Overlap 1.56 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.0–93.6 WAS 86.6–89.7 Overlap 0.69 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.3–93.3 WAS 86.7–89.6 Overlap 0.27 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.5–93.1 WAS 86.8–89.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.3) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.0) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Darren "Dimes" Lin (#9)
t-statistic: 24.73
p-value: 1.27e-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.

Maya Jefferson

ATL 88.6–94.2 WAS 85.5–90.4 Overlap 1.82 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.4 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.0–93.8 WAS 85.9–90.0 Overlap 0.98 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.3–93.4 WAS 86.1–89.7 Overlap 0.44 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.5–93.2 WAS 86.3–89.5 Overlap 0.02 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.4 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.7–93.0 WAS 86.5–89.4 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.9) — by 3.4 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Maya Jefferson (#10)
t-statistic: 27.29
p-value: 2.49e-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.

Lexi

ATL 88.5–93.8 WAS 85.4–90.2 Overlap 1.68 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.3 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.9–93.3 WAS 85.8–89.8 Overlap 0.88 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.2–93.1 WAS 86.0–89.5 Overlap 0.36 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.3 points. The ranges barely touch.

ATL 89.4–92.8 WAS 86.2–89.3 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.3 points. The 80% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

ATL 89.5–92.7 WAS 86.4–89.2 No overlap Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 91.1) over Washington Mystics (avg. 87.8) — by 3.3 points. The 75% ranges don't overlap at all — a confident model.

Show the math

Model: Lexi (#11)
t-statistic: 27.80
p-value: 1.48e-93

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

ATL 88.2–93.4 WAS 85.8–91.0 Overlap 2.75 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 95 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.4–92.8 WAS 86.2–90.6 Overlap 2.17 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 90 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.6–92.3 WAS 86.5–90.3 Overlap 1.73 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 85 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 88.9–92.0 WAS 86.7–90.1 Overlap 1.18 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 80 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges overlap some — there's real uncertainty here.

ATL 89.1–91.8 WAS 86.9–89.9 Overlap 0.85 pts Actual: ATL 93, WAS 75

In 75 out of 100 simulated runs, leans Atlanta Dream (avg. 90.4) over Washington Mystics (avg. 88.4) — by 2.0 points. The ranges barely touch.

Show the math

Model: Coach Sarah Watanabe (#12)
t-statistic: 15.40
p-value: 5.96e-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.

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.7–94.4	86.0–90.3	1.6 pts	—	No
90%	89.1–93.9	86.5–90.0	0.86 pts	—	No
85%	89.4–93.6	86.7–89.5	0.05 pts	—	No
80%	89.7–93.4	86.8–89.4	— pts	—	No
75%	89.9–93.2	87.0–89.3	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.4–94.3	85.6–90.7	2.22 pts	—	No
90%	88.9–93.8	86.0–90.2	1.34 pts	—	No
85%	89.2–93.5	86.3–90.0	0.77 pts	—	No
80%	89.4–93.3	86.5–89.8	0.34 pts	—	No
75%	89.6–93.1	86.6–89.6	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.5–94.2	86.1–90.1	1.6 pts	—	No
90%	89.0–93.7	86.3–89.7	0.71 pts	—	No
85%	89.3–93.4	86.4–89.5	0.18 pts	—	No
80%	89.5–93.2	86.6–89.3	— pts	—	No
75%	89.7–93.0	86.7–89.1	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.8–94.4	85.8–90.5	1.73 pts	—	No
90%	89.2–93.9	86.1–90.1	0.9 pts	—	No
85%	89.5–93.6	86.4–89.9	0.35 pts	—	No
80%	89.7–93.4	86.6–89.7	— pts	—	No
75%	89.9–93.2	86.7–89.5	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.1–94.0	85.1–89.3	1.19 pts	—	No
90%	88.5–93.5	85.3–88.9	0.32 pts	—	No
85%	88.8–93.2	85.4–88.5	— pts	—	No
80%	89.1–93.0	85.5–88.4	— pts	—	No
75%	89.3–92.8	85.6–88.2	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.1–94.3	85.9–91.0	2.94 pts	—	No
90%	88.6–93.8	86.2–90.2	1.58 pts	—	No
85%	88.9–93.4	86.4–89.9	1.03 pts	—	No
80%	89.2–93.2	86.5–89.8	0.6 pts	—	No
75%	89.4–93.0	86.6–89.6	0.24 pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.3–94.5	85.7–90.3	2.0 pts	—	No
90%	88.8–94.0	86.0–89.9	1.13 pts	—	No
85%	89.1–93.7	86.3–89.7	0.57 pts	—	No
80%	89.4–93.4	86.5–89.5	0.13 pts	—	No
75%	89.6–93.2	86.6–89.4	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.4–94.4	85.5–90.2	1.81 pts	—	No
90%	88.9–93.9	85.9–89.8	0.95 pts	—	No
85%	89.2–93.6	86.1–89.6	0.4 pts	—	No
80%	89.4–93.3	86.3–89.4	— pts	—	No
75%	89.6–93.1	86.5–89.2	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.2–94.4	86.1–90.8	2.6 pts	—	No
90%	88.7–93.9	86.4–90.3	1.56 pts	—	No
85%	89.0–93.6	86.6–89.7	0.69 pts	—	No
80%	89.3–93.3	86.7–89.6	0.27 pts	—	No
75%	89.5–93.1	86.8–89.4	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.6–94.2	85.5–90.4	1.82 pts	—	No
90%	89.0–93.8	85.9–90.0	0.98 pts	—	No
85%	89.3–93.4	86.1–89.7	0.44 pts	—	No
80%	89.5–93.2	86.3–89.5	0.02 pts	—	No
75%	89.7–93.0	86.5–89.4	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.5–93.8	85.4–90.2	1.68 pts	—	No
90%	88.9–93.3	85.8–89.8	0.88 pts	—	No
85%	89.2–93.1	86.0–89.5	0.36 pts	—	No
80%	89.4–92.8	86.2–89.3	— pts	—	No
75%	89.5–92.7	86.4–89.2	— pts	—	No

Level	ATL range	WAS range	Overlap	Tol Warning	Actual landed in range?
95%	88.2–93.4	85.8–91.0	2.75 pts	—	No
90%	88.4–92.8	86.2–90.6	2.17 pts	—	No
85%	88.6–92.3	86.5–90.3	1.73 pts	—	No
80%	88.9–92.0	86.7–90.1	1.18 pts	—	No
75%	89.1–91.8	86.9–89.9	0.85 pts	—	No

Atlanta Dream at Washington Mystics