Teams

BC-MiraCosta/ElizabethPark

2025 ADULT 40 & OVER - Beach Cities · BC Women - 3.5

13 players · average NTRP 3.25 / SO.CALIFORNIA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-09vs BC-PalosVerdesTC/TriciaRapaportLost 12
W#1 DoublesEmily Ashby / Kristin Scott vs Danielle Raymond / Jennifer Perkel6-3, 7-5
L#1 SinglesJackie Kim vs Melissa Lumaco2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesWendy Finster / Lindsay Newby-Snode vs Tricia Rapaport / Linda Stone3-6, 0-6
2025-02-16vs BC-LLW-SouthEnd/KathyKimLost 03
L#1 DoublesStephanie Hanger / Kristin Scott vs Denise Sands / Vanessa Hyttenberg1-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesKathleen Richter vs Maricel Pilapil-Pureza4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesWendy Finster / Brenda Phongsa vs Kate Kim / Kathy Kim0-6, 0-6
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 standings for BC Women - 3.5 have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.16 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.

3.49
Kristin Scott
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Jackie Kim
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Elizabeth Park
published 3.5
3.28
Kim Silvera
published
3.16
Emily Ashby
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.99
Wendy Finster
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Claudina Mercado
published 3
Brenda Phongsa
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Stephanie Hanger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Kathleen Richter
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Lindsay Newby-Snode
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Nicky Quinn
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.

Emily Ashby + Kristin Scott9851% games+2.1% vs expected
Elizabeth Park + Jackie Kim1542% games−4.1% 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.

Kristin Scott
27W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%54%46%
3.49
3.5
Jackie Kim
24W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
1%89%10%
3.33
3.5
Elizabeth Park
11W–19L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.33
Kim Silvera
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Emily Ashby
28W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
11%89%<1%
3.16
Wendy Finster
2W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
2.99
3
Claudina Mercado
27W–41L career · no lines in 2025
<1%54%46%
2.99
3
Brenda Phongsa
0W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3
Gabriele Engelhardt
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Hanger
8W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
2.75
Kathleen Richter
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Lindsay Newby-Snode
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Nicky Quinn
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
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.