California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
1.3803680981595092 1	Sequoias	37	1015	318	149	86	95	.313	.379	.382
2.1538461538461537 2	Taft	39	1106	343	184	64	101	.310	.364	.401
1.0495049504950495 3	Fresno City	37	992	305	189	107	108	.307	.382	.453
0.8587360594795539 4	Merced	37	1030	306	157	79	92	.297	.358	.401
1.1444444444444444 5	Porterville	32	849	225	107	111	132	.265	.366	.338
1.38135593220339 6	Reedley	37	969	238	131	76	142	.246	.316	.334
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	32	778	178	83	78	114	.229	.313	.276
1.135135135135135 8	Cerro Coso	8	164	35	16	17	25	.213	.291	.274

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
1.0495049504950495 1	Fresno City	37	72	6	20	98
2.1538461538461537 2	Taft	39	55	5	12	72
0.8587360594795539 3	Merced	37	46	11	13	70
1.38135593220339 4	Reedley	37	34	11	10	55
1.3803680981595092 5	Sequoias	37	42	8	4	54
1.1444444444444444 6	Porterville	32	43	5	3	51
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	32	20	4	3	27
1.135135135135135 8	Cerro Coso	8	6	2	0	8

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
1.0495049504950495 1	Fresno City	37	225	449	52	5
2.1538461538461537 2	Taft	39	223	444	71	8
1.3803680981595092 3	Sequoias	37	200	388	68	6
0.8587360594795539 4	Merced	37	190	413	27	7
1.38135593220339 5	Reedley	37	161	324	34	11
1.1444444444444444 6	Porterville	32	126	287	9	4
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	32	104	215	3	2
1.135135135135135 8	Cerro Coso	8	18	45	5	2

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
2.1538461538461537 1	Taft	39	37	14	33	1	56	26	2.15	1254
1.8823529411764706 2	Coalinga	32	18	1	25	1	64	34	1.88	900
1.38135593220339 3	Reedley	37	28	10	27	18	163	118	1.38	1110
1.3803680981595092 4	Sequoias	37	27	8	59	3	225	163	1.38	1195
1.1444444444444444 5	Porterville	32	28	7	21	6	103	90	1.14	1016
1.135135135135135 6	Cerro Coso	8	1	0	4	3	42	37	1.14	186
1.0495049504950495 7	Fresno City	37	16	6	34	4	106	101	1.05	1155
0.8587360594795539 8	Merced	37	24	8	12	11	231	269	.86	1153

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
1.135135135135135 1	Cerro Coso	8	8	43.0	99	93	57	9.28
1.8823529411764706 2	Coalinga	32	32	189.2	327	214	157	5.79
1.1444444444444444 3	Porterville	32	32	199.1	303	191	137	4.81
1.0495049504950495 4	Fresno City	37	37	233.2	321	189	148	4.43
1.38135593220339 5	Reedley	37	37	230.2	294	204	131	3.98
2.1538461538461537 6	Taft	39	39	259.0	296	191	127	3.43
0.8587360594795539 7	Merced	37	37	245.1	219	136	90	2.57
1.3803680981595092 8	Sequoias	37	37	252.0	257	162	91	2.53

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
1.135135135135135 1	Cerro Coso	8	8	36	5.86	3	2.70
1.8823529411764706 2	Coalinga	32	32	58	2.14	15	2.00
1.1444444444444444 3	Porterville	32	32	69	2.42	2	1.84
1.0495049504950495 4	Fresno City	37	37	69	2.07	30	1.73
1.38135593220339 5	Reedley	37	37	45	1.37	11	1.67
2.1538461538461537 6	Taft	39	39	85	2.30	17	1.52
1.3803680981595092 7	Sequoias	37	37	133	3.69	11	1.39
0.8587360594795539 8	Merced	37	37	220	6.28	7	1.26

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
1.0495049504950495 1	Fresno City	37	1120	704	361	55	3	.951
1.38135593220339 2	Reedley	37	892	547	289	56	12	.937
0.8587360594795539 3	Merced	37	1060	734	257	69	11	.935
2.1538461538461537 4	Taft	39	1228	763	381	84	17	.932
1.3803680981595092 5	Sequoias	37	1182	738	346	98	13	.917
1.1444444444444444 6	Porterville	32	887	565	247	75	14	.915
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	32	789	528	193	68	28	.914
1.135135135135135 8	Cerro Coso	8	224	129	57	38	4	.830

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
1.0495049504950495 1	Fresno City	37	17	21	8	.276	2
1.135135135135135 2	Cerro Coso	8	3	6	2	.250	0
2.1538461538461537 3	Taft	39	19	39	13	.250	0
0.8587360594795539 4	Merced	37	10	35	8	.186	0
1.3803680981595092 5	Sequoias	37	6	38	6	.136	0
1.38135593220339 6	Reedley	37	10	44	4	.083	0
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	32	14	44	4	.083	0
1.1444444444444444 8	Porterville	32	9	54	2	.036	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
1.38135593220339 1	Reedley	14.0	735	53
1.3803680981595092 2	Sequoias	24.0	900	38
1.0495049504950495 3	Fresno City	18.0	50	3
0.8587360594795539 4	Merced	20.0	0	0
1.135135135135135 5	Cerro Coso	5.0	0	0
1.1444444444444444 6	Porterville	8.0	0	0
1.8823529411764706 7	Coalinga	15.0	0	0
2.1538461538461537 8	Taft	16.0	-	-

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
1.264367816091954 1	Sequoias	18	519	172	77	36	30	.331	.389	.401
.401 2	Taft	18	538	182	94	37	48	.338	.397	.442
1.0 3	Fresno City	18	487	144	82	45	48	.296	.359	.439
0.8270676691729323 4	Merced	20	553	170	90	32	39	.307	.351	.438
1.1875 5	Porterville	18	478	128	57	58	72	.268	.356	.351
0.9545454545454546 6	Reedley	19	511	137	79	36	69	.268	.329	.378
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	19	480	121	65	48	52	.252	.332	.298
1.380952380952381 8	Cerro Coso	6	113	20	2	4	17	.177	.212	.230

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
1.0 1	Fresno City	18	37	3	9	49
49 2	Taft	18	25	2	9	36
0.8270676691729323 3	Merced	20	27	6	11	44
0.9545454545454546 4	Reedley	19	19	5	9	33
1.264367816091954 5	Sequoias	18	27	3	1	31
1.1875 6	Porterville	18	25	3	3	31
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	19	12	2	2	16
1.380952380952381 8	Cerro Coso	6	4	1	0	5

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
1.0 1	Fresno City	18	98	214	28	1
1 2	Taft	18	118	238	41	7
1.264367816091954 3	Sequoias	18	99	208	32	3
0.8270676691729323 4	Merced	20	104	242	15	5
0.9545454545454546 5	Reedley	19	97	193	14	6
1.1875 6	Porterville	18	67	168	2	1
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	19	79	143	2	2
1.380952380952381 8	Cerro Coso	6	3	26	1	1

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
$value 1	Taft	18	21	8	18	-	0	-	-	622
1.5384615384615385 2	Coalinga	19	10	1	12	-	20	13	1.54	551
0.9545454545454546 3	Reedley	19	14	7	17	14	63	66	.95	585
1.264367816091954 4	Sequoias	18	15	4	32	-	110	87	1.26	606
1.1875 5	Porterville	18	10	4	11	2	38	32	1.19	561
1.380952380952381 6	Cerro Coso	6	1	0	1	1	29	21	1.38	119
1.0 7	Fresno City	18	5	3	20	4	65	65	1.00	560
0.8270676691729323 8	Merced	20	7	3	7	6	110	133	.83	602

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
1.380952380952381 1	Cerro Coso	6	6	29.0	70	72	38	9.17
1.5384615384615385 2	Coalinga	19	19	113.1	181	115	76	4.69
1.1875 3	Porterville	18	18	114.2	180	106	74	4.52
1.0 4	Fresno City	18	18	116.2	154	79	57	3.42
0.9545454545454546 5	Reedley	19	19	116.2	155	110	74	4.44
4.44 6	Taft	18	18	123.0	115	65	40	2.28
0.8270676691729323 7	Merced	20	20	129.1	98	46	37	2.00
1.264367816091954 8	Sequoias	18	18	125.0	119	72	39	2.18

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
1.380952380952381 1	Cerro Coso	6	6	21	5.07	3	2.76
1.5384615384615385 2	Coalinga	19	19	40	2.47	7	1.90
1.1875 3	Porterville	18	18	29	1.77	2	1.87
1.0 4	Fresno City	18	18	28	1.68	12	1.65
0.9545454545454546 5	Reedley	19	19	25	1.50	5	1.76
1.76 6	Taft	18	18	41	2.33	6	1.23
1.264367816091954 7	Sequoias	18	18	72	4.03	5	1.38
0.8270676691729323 8	Merced	20	20	120	6.49	2	1.09

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
1.0 1	Fresno City	18	553	350	175	28	2	.949
0.9545454545454546 2	Reedley	19	492	293	164	35	6	.929
0.8270676691729323 3	Merced	20	532	388	119	25	7	.953
.953 4	Taft	18	575	368	170	37	2	.936
1.264367816091954 5	Sequoias	18	591	375	166	50	5	.915
1.1875 6	Porterville	18	472	305	125	42	7	.911
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	19	459	310	106	43	16	.906
1.380952380952381 8	Cerro Coso	6	158	87	39	32	3	.797

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
1.0 1	Fresno City	18	8	10	4	.286	1
1.380952380952381 2	Cerro Coso	6	3	1	1	.500	0
0 3	Taft	18	10	11	2	.154	0
0.8270676691729323 4	Merced	20	7	13	1	.071	0
1.264367816091954 5	Sequoias	18	4	14	6	.300	0
0.9545454545454546 6	Reedley	19	6	21	3	.125	0
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	19	10	32	3	.086	0
1.1875 8	Porterville	18	8	31	1	.031	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
0.9545454545454546 1	Reedley	10.0	385	39
1.264367816091954 2	Sequoias	10.0	400	40
1.0 3	Fresno City	8.0	50	7
0.8270676691729323 4	Merced	10.0	0	0
1.380952380952381 5	Cerro Coso	4.0	0	0
1.1875 6	Porterville	7.0	0	0
1.5384615384615385 7	Coalinga	11.0	-	-
- 8	Taft	8.0	-	-