Teams

SunPro Hotshots

2026 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.0W PM

20 players · average NTRP 3.68 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2026-05-19Lost 01
L#1 DoublesShelley Hunter / Sandra Chamberlain vs Regina Johnson / Courtney Bedke2-6, 2-6
2026-05-12Lost 01
L#1 DoublesShelley Hunter / Sandra Chamberlain vs Amy Allen / Angie Haskins6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2026-05-05Lost 01
L#1 DoublesNan Black / Shelley Hunter vs SalleeAnn Miller / Jocelyn Bennion3-6, 0-6
2026-04-21Lost 01
L#1 DoublesShelley Hunter / Jennifer Hoffman vs Christy Owens / Katy Alder3-6, 1-6
2026-04-18Lost 01
L#1 DoublesBreanna Winkel / Shelley Hunter vs Regina Johnson / Emily Waltman6-0, 2-6, 0-1
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 standings3 teams · 4.0W PM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Utah/Kasteler/18&Over/4.0W8035520242
2Planck44231741350
3SunPro Hotshots35142658406

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 3.37 estimated across 19 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.

3.85
Melanie Montague
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.78
Jamie Faux
usually #2 Singles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.64
Shelley Hunter
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.62
Melanie Hall
published
3.60
Tessa Baker
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.59
Jen Keisel
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Singles 40% · published 4
3.57
Suzanne Burdge
published
3.43
Anna Cronquist
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4
3.43
Breanna Winkel
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 4
3.41
Nan Black
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
3.28
Alison Carlile
usually #2 Doubles 29%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
Ashley Bailey
published 3.5
3.25
Jennifer Hoffman
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #1 Singles 29% · published
3.21
Christa Orozco
usually #1 Doubles 27%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
3.21
Diane Heaps
usually #1 Doubles 69%, also #3 Doubles 15% · published 3.5
3.17
Tiffany Ashman
usually #2 Doubles 53%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
3.10
Lori Curtis
usually #3 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
3.03
Cherylin Winkel
usually #2 Doubles 35%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
2.99
Sherston Faux
usually #2 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 37% · published 3.5
2.93
Sandra Chamberlain
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published 3.5
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.

Sandra Chamberlain + Jennifer Hoffman3350% games+7.1% vs expected
Suzanne Burdge + Melanie Hall151055% games+3.0% vs expected
Suzanne Burdge + Lori Curtis251554% games+1.9% vs expected
Tiffany Ashman + Diane Heaps15853% games−0.6% vs expected
Tiffany Ashman + Lori Curtis171249% games−0.9% vs expected
Sherston Faux + Jamie Faux0736% games−1.4% vs expected
Sherston Faux + Diane Heaps5551% games−2.9% vs expected
Sherston Faux + Cherylin Winkel0835% games−3.1% 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.

Melanie Montague
2W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%86%13%
3.85
4
Jamie Faux
9W–9L career · type S · 9 lines in 2026
2%94%5%
3.78
Shelley Hunter
96W–100L career · 5 lines in 2026
14%85%<1%
3.64
Melanie Hall
59W–49L career · no lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.62
Tessa Baker
2W–3L career · 5 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.60
4
Jen Keisel
2W–6L career · type S · 5 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
Suzanne Burdge
89W–81L career · no lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.57
4
Anna Cronquist
7W–21L career · 8 lines in 2026
70%30%<1%
3.43
4
Breanna Winkel
11W–11L career · 5 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
3.43
Nan Black
48W–77L career · 6 lines in 2026
75%25%<1%
3.41
3.5
Alison Carlile
19W–25L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Ashley Bailey
58W–48L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Jennifer Hoffman
62W–57L career · 13 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Christa Orozco
27W–34L career · 14 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Diane Heaps
92W–121L career · 13 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.21
Tiffany Ashman
97W–89L career · 15 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
3.17
Lori Curtis
85W–110L career · 11 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.10
3.5
Cherylin Winkel
112W–142L career · 16 lines in 2026
42%58%<1%
3.03
3.5
Sherston Faux
88W–157L career · 19 lines in 2026
54%46%<1%
2.99
3.5
Sandra Chamberlain
84W–86L career · 10 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
2.93

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.