Teams

WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Isensee

2023 WI Other · WI Tri Level Delta Fall Singles Men

7 players · average NTRP 3.67 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
L#2 SinglesByron Crites vs Peter Morrison6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2023-09-12Won 10
W#2 SinglesByron Crites vs Mark Saffman6-0, 6-2
W#2 SinglesByron Crites vs Ken Bahler6-3, 6-2
L#2 SinglesByron Crites vs Arik Wolk3-6, 3-6
2023-08-04Won 10
W#2 SinglesByron Crites vs Ben Hauch6-3, 6-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings7 teams · WI Tri Level Delta Fall Singles Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Isensee10228822237
2WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Nicholas84221428262
3WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Dorfman75211533302
4WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Martinez75191738297
5WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Day57162043319
6WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Jones39122448325
7WI Tri Delta M Fall Sngls MALT Sager21072958358

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.46 estimated across 6 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

3.91
Gavin Luter
usually #1 Singles 87%, also #3 Singles 13% · published 4
3.62
Aidan Stuckert
usually #3 Singles 83%, also #1 Singles 8% · published 3.5
3.42
Chris Isensee
usually #2 Doubles 78%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 4
3.39
Andrew Thooft
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.21
Chase Peck
usually #3 Singles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.18
Byron Crites
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
Kyle Browning
published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Chris Isensee + Byron Crites1637% games−1.2% vs expected
Chris Isensee + Chase Peck1936% games−4.1% vs expected
Kyle Browning + Gavin Luter033 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

4
Gavin Luter
92W–49L career · 15 lines in 2023
<1%76%24%
3.91
3.5
Aidan Stuckert
75W–22L career · 12 lines in 2023
<1%17%83%
3.62
4
Chris Isensee
94W–162L career · type A · 9 lines in 2023
72%28%<1%
3.42
3.5
Andrew Thooft
33W–49L career · 10 lines in 2023
<1%80%20%
3.39
3.5
Chase Peck
257W–173L career · 21 lines in 2023
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Byron Crites
43W–98L career · 5 lines in 2023
9%91%1%
3.18
Kyle Browning
17W–23L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.