Teams

Liberty Park Tennis-Sterbenz

2024 USTA Mixed 18 & Over · mixed 10.0 18 & over

9 players · average NTRP 4.50 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
L#2 DoublesCole Paterson / Meagan Seay vs Matt Sweet / Amanda Pratzel3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesDiana Granger / Shawn Hancock vs Katherine Rist / Corbin Benson2-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesArthur Miyazaki / Diana Granger vs Justin Delong / Amanda Pratzel5-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesScott Sowby / Meagan Seay vs Sierra Krebsbach / Christopher Arena0-6, 6-7
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 standings2 teams · mixed 10.0 18 & over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Liberty Park Tennis-Krebsbach/Arena50132569
2Liberty Park Tennis-Sterbenz0521326157

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 4.28 estimated across 8 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.

4.80
Meagan Seay
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.39
Lisa Sterbenz
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 4.5
4.25
Diana Granger
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.23
Cole Paterson
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
4.22
Arthur Miyazaki
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 4.5
4.20
Nittaya Phonharath
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
4.12
Heidi Gordon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.01
Shawn Hancock
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Scott Sowby
usually #2 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.

Lisa Sterbenz + Cole Paterson71245% games−6.8% vs expected
Lisa Sterbenz + Shawn Hancock1448% gamesnot enough data
Arthur Miyazaki + Nittaya Phonharath224 matchesnot enough data
Arthur Miyazaki + Heidi Gordon303 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.

Meagan Seay
16W–13L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
4.80
4.5
Lisa Sterbenz
151W–144L career · 10 lines in 2024
<1%79%21%
4.39
4.5
Diana Granger
64W–41L career · 2 lines in 2024
3%95%3%
4.25
4.5
Cole Paterson
49W–38L career · 8 lines in 2024
4%94%2%
4.23
4.5
Arthur Miyazaki
128W–35L career · 8 lines in 2024
5%94%2%
4.22
Nittaya Phonharath
72W–31L career · 7 lines in 2024
6%93%1%
4.20
4.5
Heidi Gordon
105W–100L career · 3 lines in 2024
18%82%<1%
4.12
Shawn Hancock
59W–81L career · 6 lines in 2024
46%54%<1%
4.01
Scott Sowby
39W–10L career · 1 line in 2024
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.