Teams

Liberty Park Volleydolls

2026 Fall Outdoor League-Weekday · 3.0W

11 players · average NTRP 2.92 / UTAH

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Flight standings19 teams · 3.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Red Ledges-Archibald000000
2Ivory Ridge Racquettes000000
3Park City Flying Squirrels000000
4Liberty Park Volleydolls000000
5Sports Mall Tenistas000000
6Sports Mall-Callister/Shipp000000
7Ivory Ridge Supreme Court000000
8SunPro Simply Smashing000000
9PC MARC-Schlachter000000
10SunPro Lucky Shots000000
11ACES-Swalberg/Harman000000
12Sports Mall-Stroud-Peterson000000
13Cottonwood Club-Ricker/Barber000000
14Wasatch Winners000000
15SLTHC Net Assets000000
16Ogden-Peacock000000
17Eagleridge-Dato/Johnson000000
18Wasatch Hills-High Level000000
19Wasatch Rec 3.0000000

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 2.61 estimated across 11 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.

2.81
Liz Baucom
published 3
2.79
Megan Berceau
published 3
2.78
Liz Bell
published
2.70
Rebecca Anderson
published
2.70
Erin Massey
published 3
2.67
Anna Pearce
published 3
2.62
Niki Evans
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.50
Nicole Langlie
published 3
2.49
MacY Bell
published
2.37
Kassie Belcher
published 2.5
2.31
Marie Gardner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Erin Massey + Liz Bell8557% games+7.2% vs expected
Liz Baucom + Erin Massey9461% games+6.8% vs expected
Rebecca Anderson + Erin Massey4351% games+6.6% vs expected
Megan Berceau + Liz Bell6064% games+5.5% vs expected
Liz Baucom + Liz Bell9654% games+4.4% vs expected
Rebecca Anderson + Liz Baucom6951% games+4.1% vs expected
Rebecca Anderson + Liz Bell4456% games+4.0% vs expected
Kassie Belcher + Liz Bell7755% games+3.9% vs expected
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.

3
Liz Baucom
72W–55L career · no lines in 2026
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Megan Berceau
71W–78L career · no lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.79
Liz Bell
48W–35L career · no lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.78
Rebecca Anderson
45W–63L career · no lines in 2026
6%93%1%
2.70
3
Erin Massey
61W–53L career · no lines in 2026
6%93%1%
2.70
3
Anna Pearce
53W–29L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%<1%
2.67
Niki Evans
52W–45L career · 1 line in 2026
0%18%82%
2.62
3
Nicole Langlie
11W–8L career · type D · no lines in 2026
52%48%<1%
2.50
MacY Bell
35W–44L career · no lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
2.49
2.5
Kassie Belcher
38W–67L career · no lines in 2026
0%85%15%
2.37
Marie Gardner
20W–38L career · 1 line in 2026
0%93%7%
2.31

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.