Teams

SDNC 3.0 La Costa (3:2)/ Mancuso

2023 Adult 18 & Over Spring - SDNC · SDNC - Women - 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.08 / SAN DIEGO

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 →
Schedule7 played
2023-06-06vs SDNC 3.0 Morgan Run (3:2)/ BolgerLost 01
L#1 SinglesKIM Wolf vs MONICA SYLVESTER4-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesKIM Wolf / Libby Laplante vs Nahomi Kato / Azumi Ueno6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2023-05-09Won 10
W#1 SinglesKIM Wolf vs Cynthia Hudson6-4, 6-2
2023-04-25Won 10
W#1 SinglesKIM Wolf vs Ally de Wildt6-4, 6-1
2023-04-18vs SDNC 3.0 FRCC (3:2)/ StromWon 10
W#1 SinglesKIM Wolf vs Karen Butler6-4, 6-0
2023-04-11vs SDNC 3.0 FRCC (3:2)/ SemerdjianLost 01
L#2 DoublesPamela Day / KIM Wolf vs Christy Horton / Susana M Smith6-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesPamela Day / BROOKE WAGNER vs Erinn Hanson / Heather Traficonte0-6, 2-6
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 SDNC - Women - 3.0 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 2.82 estimated across 9 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.

3.25
KIM Wolf
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
2.89
Baylea Oconnor
published 3
2.87
Gina Rivera
published 3
2.84
Pamela Day
published
2.83
Pamela Hildebrand
published
2.82
Heather Gonzalez
published 3
2.73
Arghavan Parsi
published 3
2.63
Libby Laplante
published
2.49
Athena Schmid
published 3
BROOKE WAGNER
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 0
Ruth Utti
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.

Heather Gonzalez + Pamela Day2350% games−4.3% vs expected
Libby Laplante + Arghavan Parsi213 matchesnot enough data
Pamela Hildebrand + Pamela Day303 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.

3.5
KIM Wolf
18W–18L career · 6 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.25
3
Baylea Oconnor
8W–3L career · no lines in 2023
<1%80%20%
2.89
3
Gina Rivera
59W–80L career · no lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
2.87
Pamela Day
8W–11L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%11%
2.84
Pamela Hildebrand
3W–1L career · no lines in 2023
1%90%9%
2.83
3
Heather Gonzalez
4W–12L career · no lines in 2023
1%91%9%
2.82
3
Arghavan Parsi
5W–7L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
2.73
Libby Laplante
3W–18L career · no lines in 2023
15%84%<1%
2.63
3
Athena Schmid
3W–3L career · type A · no lines in 2023
52%48%<1%
2.49
0
BROOKE WAGNER
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Ruth Utti
0W–2L career · no lines in 2023
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.