California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
$value 1	Porterville	40	1294	286	131	147	368	.221	.329	.277
.277 2	Coalinga	39	1296	306	149	106	336	.236	.312	.296
.296 3	Taft	40	1373	348	198	174	303	.253	.357	.348
.348 4	Reedley	40	1377	395	260	237	273	.287	.408	.424
.424 5	Fresno City	43	1533	461	306	242	379	.301	.410	.444
.444 6	Sequoias	41	1446	437	254	173	238	.302	.393	.396
.396 7	Merced	42	1566	510	346	175	253	.326	.402	.481

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
$value 1	Porterville	40	40	1	10	51
51 2	Coalinga	39	36	10	7	53
53 3	Taft	40	69	5	17	91
91 4	Sequoias	41	83	8	12	103
103 5	Reedley	40	84	9	29	122
122 6	Fresno City	43	77	17	36	130
130 7	Merced	42	93	21	36	150

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
$value 1	Porterville	40	153	358	31	7
7 2	Coalinga	39	172	383	32	12
12 3	Taft	40	223	478	58	14
14 4	Sequoias	41	288	572	34	14
14 4	Reedley	40	311	584	27	11
11 6	Fresno City	43	354	680	52	8
8 7	Merced	42	394	753	80	10

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
$value 1	Coalinga	39	43	13	15	11	342	287	1.19	1473
1473 2	Porterville	40	68	12	16	28	303	321	.94	1537
1537 3	Taft	40	53	12	15	18	331	374	.89	1627
1627 4	Sequoias	41	51	14	20	36	380	374	1.02	1704
1704 5	Reedley	40	55	16	24	34	318	378	.84	1709
1709 6	Merced	42	48	33	21	15	365	410	.89	1843
1843 7	Fresno City	43	54	19	28	19	324	364	.89	1876

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
$value 1	Fresno City	43	43	387.0	359	217	169	3.93
3.93 2	Reedley	40	40	349.2	380	235	175	4.50
4.50 3	Sequoias	41	41	359.2	436	258	213	5.33
5.33 4	Merced	42	42	366.1	407	275	237	5.82
5.82 5	Taft	40	40	345.2	416	304	235	6.12
6.12 6	Coalinga	39	39	332.1	457	359	297	8.04
8.04 7	Porterville	40	40	338.1	478	473	393	10.45

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
$value 1	Fresno City	43	43	403	9.37	10	1.38
1.38 2	Reedley	40	40	292	7.52	19	1.51
1.51 3	Merced	42	42	343	8.43	34	1.61
1.61 4	Sequoias	41	41	244	6.11	22	1.70
1.70 5	Taft	40	40	292	7.60	33	1.73
1.73 6	Coalinga	39	39	239	6.47	23	1.85
1.85 7	Porterville	40	40	286	7.61	30	2.30

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
$value 1	Porterville	40	1416	1015	302	99	54	.930
.930 2	Coalinga	39	1413	997	321	95	11	.933
.933 3	Reedley	40	1504	1049	369	86	7	.943
.943 4	Taft	40	1526	1037	404	85	17	.944
.944 5	Fresno City	43	1661	1160	422	79	18	.952
.952 6	Merced	42	1572	1098	411	63	19	.960
.960 7	Sequoias	41	1555	1079	415	61	10	.961

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
$value 1	Porterville	40	20	93	6	.061	0
0 2	Coalinga	39	5	91	11	.108	0
0 2	Taft	40	23	68	15	.181	2
2 4	Merced	42	15	32	9	.220	0
0 5	Sequoias	41	37	32	10	.238	0
0 5	Fresno City	43	30	35	12	.255	2
2 7	Reedley	40	19	23	11	.324	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
$value 1	Merced	18	0	0
0 2	Porterville	22	0	0
0 2	Sequoias	23	100	5
5 4	Coalinga	17	608	36
36 5	Taft	18	835	47
47 6	Reedley	20	2,806	141
141 7	Fresno City	23	4,196	183

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
$value 1	Porterville	24	807	180	73	82	221	.223	.318	.271
.271 2	Coalinga	24	813	198	88	69	222	.244	.322	.305
.305 3	Taft	24	844	231	128	89	168	.274	.359	.370
.370 4	Reedley	24	866	262	169	153	161	.303	.422	.453
.453 5	Fresno City	24	870	276	187	141	198	.317	.424	.453
.453 5	Sequoias	24	853	266	166	111	132	.312	.409	.404
.404 7	Merced	24	895	303	218	107	132	.339	.417	.517

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
$value 1	Porterville	24	22	1	5	28
28 2	Coalinga	24	23	6	5	34
34 3	Taft	24	39	3	12	54
54 4	Sequoias	24	44	4	9	57
57 5	Reedley	24	55	6	21	82
82 6	Fresno City	24	46	12	16	74
74 7	Merced	24	52	12	28	92

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
$value 1	Porterville	24	91	219	23	3
3 2	Coalinga	24	99	248	24	4
4 3	Taft	24	142	312	28	5
5 4	Sequoias	24	190	345	21	11
11 5	Reedley	24	207	392	15	4
4 6	Fresno City	24	220	394	36	4
4 6	Merced	24	242	463	41	4

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
$value 1	Coalinga	24	28	6	12	5	206	180	1.14	928
928 2	Porterville	24	34	9	10	16	194	202	.96	942
942 3	Taft	24	29	9	11	10	209	232	.90	982
982 4	Sequoias	24	38	13	14	18	217	231	.94	1029
1029 5	Reedley	24	34	12	13	22	200	232	.86	1078
1078 6	Merced	24	24	16	17	11	203	246	.83	1059
1059 7	Fresno City	24	29	11	17	9	174	218	.80	1068

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
$value 1	Fresno City	24	24	215.0	193	100	76	3.18
3.18 2	Reedley	24	24	213.0	251	158	119	5.03
5.03 3	Sequoias	24	24	211.0	243	126	99	4.22
4.22 4	Merced	24	24	210.1	219	124	113	4.84
4.84 5	Taft	24	24	207.2	239	167	129	5.59
5.59 6	Coalinga	24	24	209.1	274	218	165	7.09
7.09 7	Porterville	24	24	208.1	297	298	246	10.63

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
$value 1	Fresno City	24	24	223	9.33	7	1.32
1.32 2	Reedley	24	24	166	7.01	12	1.54
1.54 3	Merced	24	24	204	8.73	12	1.55
1.55 4	Sequoias	24	24	155	6.61	10	1.54
1.54 5	Taft	24	24	178	7.71	18	1.68
1.68 6	Coalinga	24	24	153	6.58	18	1.76
1.76 7	Porterville	24	24	155	6.70	19	2.34

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
$value 1	Porterville	24	888	625	209	54	26	.939
.939 2	Coalinga	24	905	628	206	71	7	.922
.922 3	Reedley	24	907	639	212	56	4	.938
.938 4	Taft	24	916	623	253	40	9	.956
.956 5	Fresno City	24	933	644	248	41	8	.956
.956 5	Merced	24	890	630	234	26	8	.971
.971 7	Sequoias	24	905	633	234	38	6	.958

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
$value 1	Porterville	24	13	53	4	.070	0
0 2	Coalinga	24	4	49	6	.109	0
0 2	Taft	24	16	27	5	.156	0
0 2	Merced	24	9	17	5	.227	0
0 2	Sequoias	24	24	14	3	.176	0
0 2	Fresno City	24	16	13	4	.235	1
1 7	Reedley	24	9	15	5	.250	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
$value 1	Merced	12	0	0
0 2	Porterville	12	0	0
0 2	Sequoias	12	0	0
0 2	Coalinga	12	298	25
25 5	Taft	12	525	44
44 6	Reedley	12	1,740	145
145 7	Fresno City	12	1,534	128