Teams

New Rochelle 955

2022 55&Over Men · 9.0

15 players · average NTRP 4.50 / SOUTHERN REGION

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 →
Schedule6 played
L#1 DoublesRusty Wright / David Lerner vs Marc Lowitz / Robert Labriola6-7, 3-6
W#2 DoublesLawrence Green / Lawrence Hirsch vs Robert Reby / Steven Sokol6-3, 6-4
L#1 DoublesLawrence Green / Lawrence Hirsch vs Marc Lowitz / Robert Labriola1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesAndrew Frank / Dan Forrester vs Steven Sokol / David Ulrich7-5, 3-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesDavid Factor / David Lerner vs Gregory Morley / William Stanley3-6, 5-7
L#1 DoublesChris Stokes / Andy Blotner vs Marc Lowitz / Robert Labriola4-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesRusty Wright / David Lerner vs Robert Reby / David Ulrich6-2, 6-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLawrence Green / Andrew Frank vs Takao Inouye / Steven Sokol7-5, 6-3
W#1 DoublesRusty Wright / David Lerner vs Marc Lowitz / David Ulrich7-5, 7-5
W#2 DoublesLawrence Green / Lawrence Hirsch vs Gregory Morley / William Stanley6-1, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesChris Stokes / Peter Olbrys vs Wojciech Rymarowicz / Richard Callwood1-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesDavid Lerner / David Factor vs Marc Lowitz / David Ulrich4-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesPeter Olbrys / Lawrence Green vs Wojciech Rymarowicz / Takao Inouye7-6, 7-5
W#3 DoublesChris Stokes / Andy Blotner vs Steven Sokol / Gregory Morley6-1, 6-4
W#1 DoublesLawrence Green / Lawrence Hirsch vs Steven Sokol / Robert Labriola6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesAndy Blotner / Pradeep Crasto vs David Ulrich / Robert Reby2-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesChris Stokes / Keith Seidman vs Takao Inouye / Wojciech Rymarowicz6-1, 1-6, 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 standings2 teams · 9.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1New Rochelle 955069920167
2Southern: Chestnut Ridge: The Big Nuts069920180

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 3.84 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.

4.30
Lawrence Hirsch
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
4.28
David Lerner
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
Andrew Frank
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
Chris Stokes
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
Dan Forrester
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
David Factor
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.02
Lawrence Green
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.82
Andy Blotner
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.76
Mitchell Berger
published
3.63
Keith Seidman
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.62
Michael Dalton
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.27
Peter Chavez
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Peter Olbrys
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Pradeep Crasto
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Rusty Wright
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Lawrence Hirsch + Lawrence Green16853% games+3.5% vs expected
Chris Stokes + Andy Blotner10656% games+2.9% vs expected
Chris Stokes + Dan Forrester6353% games+0.9% vs expected
Chris Stokes + Lawrence Green1537% games−3.3% vs expected
Lawrence Green + Dan Forrester4446% games−4.2% vs expected
Mitchell Berger + Michael Dalton5161% gamesnot enough data
Keith Seidman + Michael Dalton3249% gamesnot enough data
Peter Chavez + Lawrence Green134 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.

Lawrence Hirsch
70W–34L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
4.30
4.5
David Lerner
35W–23L career · 5 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
4.28
4.5
Andrew Frank
26W–60L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Chris Stokes
43W–34L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Dan Forrester
24W–32L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
4.5
David Factor
15W–9L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lawrence Green
52W–61L career · 6 lines in 2022
43%57%<1%
4.02
4.5
Andy Blotner
29W–28L career · 3 lines in 2022
91%9%<1%
3.82
Mitchell Berger
70W–20L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.76
Keith Seidman
101W–83L career · 3 lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
3.63
Michael Dalton
86W–68L career · 5 lines in 2022
17%82%<1%
3.62
Peter Chavez
39W–86L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
Peter Olbrys
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Pradeep Crasto
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Rusty Wright
29W–16L career · 3 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.