California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
$value 1	Coalinga	36	1181	241	77	118	361	.204	.290	.245
.245 2	Porterville	40	1277	272	112	132	308	.213	.305	.269
.269 3	Merced	40	1392	379	238	176	295	.272	.378	.387
.387 4	Reedley	43	1509	415	257	194	245	.275	.377	.350
.350 5	Sequoias	42	1430	394	197	191	234	.276	.376	.357
.357 6	Taft	43	1547	449	266	200	378	.290	.390	.441
.441 7	Cerro Coso	40	1393	420	243	117	297	.302	.370	.439
.439 8	Fresno City	45	1584	490	292	218	295	.309	.414	.435

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
$value 1	Coalinga	36	39	3	1	43
43 2	Porterville	40	42	10	3	55
55 3	Reedley	43	55	14	10	79
79 4	Sequoias	42	76	7	9	92
92 5	Merced	40	65	13	23	101
101 6	Cerro Coso	40	87	13	26	126
126 7	Taft	43	77	11	45	133
133 8	Fresno City	45	101	13	24	138

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
$value 1	Coalinga	36	86	289	21	13
13 2	Porterville	40	132	343	42	18
18 3	Sequoias	42	238	511	25	12
12 4	Cerro Coso	40	269	611	28	9
9 5	Merced	40	286	539	44	15
15 6	Reedley	43	301	528	19	11
11 7	Taft	43	313	683	66	26
26 8	Fresno City	45	332	689	55	16

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
$value 1	Coalinga	36	26	2	2	20	308	240	1.28	1329
1329 2	Porterville	40	39	3	29	24	384	303	1.27	1480
1480 3	Cerro Coso	40	46	20	17	29	317	344	.92	1593
1593 4	Merced	40	72	17	36	24	340	369	.92	1693
1693 5	Sequoias	42	51	20	35	42	421	380	1.11	1727
1727 6	Reedley	43	67	24	32	37	414	418	.99	1826
1826 7	Taft	43	57	8	18	17	325	358	.91	1830
1830 8	Fresno City	45	81	24	27	42	367	431	.85	1934

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
$value 1	Fresno City	45	45	403.1	355	199	130	2.90
2.90 2	Reedley	43	43	389.2	350	184	142	3.28
3.28 3	Sequoias	42	42	374.2	358	182	140	3.36
3.36 4	Merced	40	40	354.2	323	234	190	4.82
4.82 5	Taft	43	43	375.2	399	263	204	4.89
4.89 6	Cerro Coso	40	40	338.2	422	276	220	5.85
5.85 7	Porterville	40	40	338.2	463	362	311	8.26
8.26 8	Coalinga	36	36	306.1	484	445	380	11.16

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
$value 1	Reedley	43	43	283	6.54	14	1.23
1.23 2	Sequoias	42	42	332	7.98	17	1.24
1.24 3	Fresno City	45	45	420	9.37	12	1.40
1.40 4	Merced	40	40	293	7.44	17	1.46
1.46 5	Taft	43	43	303	7.26	21	1.58
1.58 6	Cerro Coso	40	40	285	7.57	12	1.80
1.80 7	Porterville	40	40	206	5.47	17	2.02
2.02 8	Coalinga	36	36	214	6.29	14	2.30

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
$value 1	Coalinga	36	1308	922	275	111	10	.915
.915 2	Reedley	43	1753	1169	498	86	4	.951
.951 3	Cerro Coso	40	1495	1015	409	71	10	.953
.953 4	Fresno City	45	1695	1210	406	79	28	.953
.953 4	Porterville	40	1443	1016	368	59	62	.959
.959 6	Taft	43	1625	1127	432	66	16	.959
.959 6	Merced	40	1549	1064	426	59	12	.962
.962 8	Sequoias	42	1620	1124	438	58	2	.964

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
$value 1	Coalinga	36	20	63	10	.137	-
- 2	Fresno City	45	31	36	6	.143	1
1 3	Porterville	40	20	72	16	.182	-
- 4	Taft	43	33	60	15	.200	1
1 5	Cerro Coso	40	30	28	13	.317	-
- 6	Reedley	43	36	31	18	.367	-
- 6	Sequoias	42	30	17	12	.414	-
- 6	Merced	40	28	26	30	.536	-

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
$value 1	Merced	17	0	0
0 2	Sequoias	23	0	0
0 2	Porterville	22	50	3
3 4	Coalinga	18	135	8
8 5	Cerro Coso	20	400	20
20 6	Taft	19	415	22
22 7	Reedley	23	3,049	133
133 8	Fresno City	24	5,434	227

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
$value 1	Coalinga	21	687	140	45	57	208	.204	.278	.246
.246 2	Porterville	21	695	163	70	68	172	.235	.319	.291
.291 3	Merced	21	722	205	131	95	143	.284	.398	.392
.392 4	Reedley	21	718	200	133	103	118	.279	.386	.361
.361 5	Sequoias	21	739	217	129	112	115	.294	.404	.388
.388 6	Taft	21	748	221	126	89	164	.295	.386	.439
.439 7	Cerro Coso	21	740	198	117	61	161	.268	.344	.380
.380 8	Fresno City	21	747	243	158	103	116	.325	.425	.461

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
$value 1	Coalinga	21	22	2	1	25
25 2	Porterville	21	22	4	3	29
29 3	Reedley	21	27	7	6	40
40 4	Sequoias	21	49	3	5	57
57 5	Merced	21	33	6	11	50
50 6	Cerro Coso	21	40	5	11	56
56 7	Taft	21	28	5	23	56
56 7	Fresno City	21	50	9	11	70

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
$value 1	Coalinga	21	51	169	12	6
6 2	Porterville	21	81	202	23	7
7 3	Sequoias	21	150	287	13	4
4 4	Cerro Coso	21	131	281	7	4
4 4	Merced	21	151	283	16	9
9 6	Reedley	21	151	259	12	5
5 7	Taft	21	148	328	23	15
15 8	Fresno City	21	175	344	29	6

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
$value 1	Coalinga	21	14	-	1	15	179	146	1.23	759
759 2	Porterville	21	20	3	17	14	191	167	1.14	803
803 3	Cerro Coso	21	29	8	12	15	160	211	.76	850
850 4	Merced	21	48	10	18	14	165	210	.79	893
893 5	Sequoias	21	33	11	20	19	212	195	1.09	915
915 6	Reedley	21	32	15	14	21	196	206	.95	882
882 7	Taft	21	25	5	9	7	155	196	.79	876
876 8	Fresno City	21	39	16	11	24	163	225	.72	916

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
$value 1	Fresno City	21	21	190.0	170	76	54	2.56
2.56 2	Reedley	21	21	189.2	155	69	51	2.42
2.42 3	Sequoias	21	21	188.2	163	78	64	3.05
3.05 4	Merced	21	21	185.2	148	85	65	3.15
3.15 5	Taft	21	21	184.1	189	121	97	4.74
4.74 6	Cerro Coso	21	21	184.1	231	143	116	5.66
5.66 7	Porterville	21	21	180.2	250	197	176	8.77
8.77 8	Coalinga	21	21	176.2	276	264	224	11.41

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
$value 1	Reedley	21	21	149	7.07	11	1.07
1.07 2	Sequoias	21	21	181	8.63	10	1.10
1.10 3	Fresno City	21	21	217	10.28	8	1.39
1.39 4	Merced	21	21	151	7.32	7	1.22
1.22 5	Taft	21	21	148	7.23	9	1.51
1.51 6	Cerro Coso	21	21	147	7.18	6	1.75
1.75 7	Porterville	21	21	95	4.73	13	2.01
2.01 8	Coalinga	21	21	109	5.55	7	2.29

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
$value 1	Coalinga	21	754	533	153	68	4	.910
.910 2	Reedley	21	836	569	227	40	2	.952
.952 3	Cerro Coso	21	813	552	222	39	3	.952
.952 3	Fresno City	21	786	570	185	31	6	.961
.961 5	Porterville	21	766	542	194	30	31	.961
.961 5	Taft	21	780	553	199	28	7	.964
.964 7	Merced	21	788	557	206	25	4	.968
.968 8	Sequoias	21	820	566	231	23	1	.972

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
$value 1	Coalinga	21	14	40	1	.024	-
- 2	Fresno City	21	17	13	3	.188	-
- 2	Porterville	21	11	29	12	.293	-
- 2	Taft	21	17	19	8	.296	-
- 2	Cerro Coso	21	19	12	5	.294	-
- 2	Reedley	21	18	11	8	.421	-
- 2	Sequoias	21	16	2	5	.714	-
- 2	Merced	21	17	9	11	.550	-

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
$value 1	Merced	11	0	0
0 2	Sequoias	10	0	0
0 2	Porterville	10	50	5
5 4	Coalinga	10	0	0
0 5	Cerro Coso	10	210	21
21 6	Taft	11	190	18
18 7	Reedley	11	1,733	158
158 8	Fresno City	11	2,965	270