Teams

Mixed Tri Rhodehouse

AZ Slaughter Mixed Tri Level · AZ Slaughter

14 players · average NTRP 3.90 / CENTRAL ARIZONA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2022-10-30vs Mixed Tri Super Seriously MixedWon 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesMrinal Das / Melissa Bagayas vs Todd Hoeder / Kelly Sparks6-2, 6-2
2022-10-29vs Mixed Tri ShinderWon 10
W#1 Mixed DoublesMrinal Das / Melissa Bagayas vs Kyle Faino / Kendall Hanks5-7, 6-3, 1-0
2022-10-29vs Mixed Tri TaylorLost 01
L#1 Mixed DoublesMrinal Das / Melissa Bagayas vs Matt Levy / Stephanie Christensen3-6, 6-0, 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 standings6 teams · AZ Slaughter
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Mixed Tri Shinder4110512124
2Mixed Tri Taylor4110516137
3Mixed Tri Rhodehouse3210512110
4Mixed Tri Perrin236919146
5Mixed Tri Also Super Seriously Mixed2351023160
6Mixed Tri Super Seriously Mixed0541124167

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 3.63 estimated across 12 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.

4.20
Mrinal Das
usually #1 Mixed Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.16
Denise Richardson
published 4.5
3.90
Melissa Bagayas
published
3.77
Michael Strilich
published
3.69
Sam Blankenship
published
3.65
Malia Uhatafe
published
3.56
Rachel Camacho
published
3.49
Craig Abney
published 4
3.45
Mark Sadosky
published
3.40
Rebekah Allen
published
3.40
John Brauneis
published
Catherine Zelkowski
published 3.5
2.92
Cheryl Sharpe
published 3
Lorie Mckinney
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.

Melissa Bagayas + Sam Blankenship12953% games+4.8% vs expected
Melissa Bagayas + Craig Abney7455% games+4.5% vs expected
Cheryl Sharpe + Craig Abney8950% games−5.9% vs expected
Rachel Camacho + Sam Blankenship8948% gamesnot enough data
Melissa Bagayas + Michael Strilich7168% gamesnot enough data
Malia Uhatafe + Craig Abney3543% gamesnot enough data
Lorie Mckinney + Craig Abney134 matchesnot enough data
Malia Uhatafe + Sam Blankenship224 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.

4.5
Mrinal Das
109W–60L career · 3 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
4.20
4.5
Denise Richardson
78W–47L career · no lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
4.16
Melissa Bagayas
110W–84L career · no lines in 2022
78%22%<1%
3.90
Michael Strilich
86W–66L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.77
Sam Blankenship
63W–59L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.69
Malia Uhatafe
125W–99L career · no lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
3.65
Rachel Camacho
220W–228L career · no lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
3.56
4
Craig Abney
210W–299L career · no lines in 2022
53%47%<1%
3.49
Mark Sadosky
166W–88L career · no lines in 2022
<1%64%36%
3.45
Rebekah Allen
162W–151L career · no lines in 2022
<1%78%22%
3.40
John Brauneis
89W–62L career · no lines in 2022
<1%79%21%
3.40
3.5
Catherine Zelkowski
34W–35L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Cheryl Sharpe
150W–124L career · no lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
2.92
Lorie Mckinney
163W–127L career · no lines in 2022
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.