Teams

Baseline Babes W Picante

2024 TRI-Level · Picante 4.5

8 players · average NTRP 4.50 / CENTRAL ARIZONA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2024-05-05vs CamachoShinder PicanteLost 12
L#1 DoublesKendall Hanks / Channing Peebles vs Anna Bergmann / Cheri Quesenberry0-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSu Su Win Thu / Mandy Powell vs Arielle Shinder / Valeria Laguna6-7, 4-6
W#3 DoublesNancy Bates / Katie Taratsas vs Rachel Camacho / Marlene Zwolenik4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-05-04vs Taylor W PicanteLost 12
L#1 DoublesKendall Hanks / Channing Peebles vs Dawn Schuerkamp / Katy Schuerkamp1-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMandy Powell / Janet Sauter vs Catherine Salgado / Serena Unrein7-6, 6-3
L#3 DoublesKatie Taratsas / Nancy Bates vs Ruby OHayre / Olivia Montez1-6, 7-5, 0-1
2024-05-04vs Baker W PicanteWon 30
W#1 DoublesChanning Peebles / Kendall Hanks vs Stephanie Lasalle / Susie McArdle6-4, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSu Su Win Thu / Mandy Powell vs Carmen Walker / Imee Arocan2-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesNancy Bates / Meg Perich vs Trude Kronenberg / Denise Phillips6-0, 6-4
2024-05-03vs PHX/Blawn/TRIWOMEN/4.5/4.0/3.5Lost 12
L#1 DoublesChanning Peebles / Kendall Hanks vs Yuka Shoji / Sarah Baker1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesSu Su Win Thu / Janet Sauter vs Kathryn Swan / Gabrielle Blawn6-3, 6-3
L#3 DoublesMeg Perich / Katie Taratsas vs Claire Luthy / Lorie Mckinney2-6, 1-6
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 standings5 teams · Picante 4.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CamachoShinder Picante40102694
2PHX/Blawn/TRIWOMEN/4.5/4.0/3.53184979
3Taylor W Picante225717124
4Baseline Babes W Picante136615119
5Baker W Picante0411123139

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 3.74 estimated across 7 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.

4.08
Channing Peebles
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.99
Janet Sauter
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.89
Kendall Hanks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.67
Katie Taratsas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.62
Su Su Win Thu
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.58
Nancy Bates
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Meg Perich
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mandy Powell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Mandy Powell + Janet Sauter20167% games+6.7% vs expected
Kendall Hanks + Channing Peebles134 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
Channing Peebles
55W–47L career · 4 lines in 2024
28%72%<1%
4.08
Janet Sauter
159W–50L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%54%46%
3.99
Kendall Hanks
137W–98L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%<1%>99%
3.89
Katie Taratsas
23W–42L career · 3 lines in 2024
11%88%1%
3.67
Su Su Win Thu
107W–85L career · 3 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
3.62
Nancy Bates
43W–37L career · 3 lines in 2024
29%71%<1%
3.58
Meg Perich
55W–63L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%89%10%
3.32
Mandy Powell
87W–25L career · 3 lines in 2024
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.