California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
3.6944444444444446 1	Sequoias	37	1015	318	149	86	95	.313	.379	.382
2.2972972972972974 2	Taft	39	1106	343	184	64	101	.310	.364	.401
2.067047075606277 3	Fresno City	37	992	305	189	107	108	.307	.382	.453
6.2771739130434785 4	Merced	37	1030	306	157	79	92	.297	.358	.401
2.423076923076923 5	Porterville	32	849	225	107	111	132	.265	.366	.338
1.365606936416185 6	Reedley	37	969	238	131	76	142	.246	.316	.334
2.140597539543058 7	Coalinga	32	778	178	83	78	114	.229	.313	.276
5.86046511627907 8	Cerro Coso	8	164	35	16	17	25	.213	.291	.274

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
2.067047075606277 1	Fresno City	37	72	6	20	98
2.2972972972972974 2	Taft	39	55	5	12	72
6.2771739130434785 3	Merced	37	46	11	13	70
1.365606936416185 4	Reedley	37	34	11	10	55
3.6944444444444446 5	Sequoias	37	42	8	4	54
2.423076923076923 6	Porterville	32	43	5	3	51
2.140597539543058 7	Coalinga	32	20	4	3	27
5.86046511627907 8	Cerro Coso	8	6	2	0	8

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
2.067047075606277 1	Fresno City	37	225	449	52	5
2.2972972972972974 2	Taft	39	223	444	71	8
3.6944444444444446 3	Sequoias	37	200	388	68	6
6.2771739130434785 4	Merced	37	190	413	27	7
1.365606936416185 5	Reedley	37	161	324	34	11
2.423076923076923 6	Porterville	32	126	287	9	4
2.140597539543058 7	Coalinga	32	104	215	3	2
5.86046511627907 8	Cerro Coso	8	18	45	5	2

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
2.2972972972972974 1	Taft	39	37	14	33	1	56	26	2.15	1254
3.6944444444444446 2	Sequoias	37	27	8	59	3	225	163	1.38	1195
2.067047075606277 3	Fresno City	37	16	6	34	4	106	101	1.05	1155
6.2771739130434785 4	Merced	37	24	8	12	11	231	269	.86	1153
1.365606936416185 5	Reedley	37	28	10	27	18	163	118	1.38	1110
2.423076923076923 6	Porterville	32	28	7	21	6	103	90	1.14	1016
2.140597539543058 7	Coalinga	32	18	1	25	1	64	34	1.88	900
5.86046511627907 8	Cerro Coso	8	1	0	4	3	42	37	1.14	186

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
5.86046511627907 1	Cerro Coso	8	8	43.0	99	93	57	9.28
2.140597539543058 2	Coalinga	32	32	189.2	327	214	157	5.79
2.423076923076923 3	Porterville	32	32	199.1	303	191	137	4.81
2.067047075606277 4	Fresno City	37	37	233.2	321	189	148	4.43
1.365606936416185 5	Reedley	37	37	230.2	294	204	131	3.98
2.2972972972972974 6	Taft	39	39	259.0	296	191	127	3.43
6.2771739130434785 7	Merced	37	37	245.1	219	136	90	2.57
3.6944444444444446 8	Sequoias	37	37	252.0	257	162	91	2.53

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
6.2771739130434785 1	Merced	37	37	220	6.28	7	1.26
5.86046511627907 2	Cerro Coso	8	8	36	5.86	3	2.70
3.6944444444444446 3	Sequoias	37	37	133	3.69	11	1.39
2.423076923076923 4	Porterville	32	32	69	2.42	2	1.84
2.2972972972972974 5	Taft	39	39	85	2.30	17	1.52
2.140597539543058 6	Coalinga	32	32	58	2.14	15	2.00
2.067047075606277 7	Fresno City	37	37	69	2.07	30	1.73
1.365606936416185 8	Reedley	37	37	45	1.37	11	1.67

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
2.067047075606277 1	Fresno City	37	1120	704	361	55	3	.951
1.365606936416185 2	Reedley	37	892	547	289	56	12	.937
6.2771739130434785 3	Merced	37	1060	734	257	69	11	.935
2.2972972972972974 4	Taft	39	1228	763	381	84	17	.932
3.6944444444444446 5	Sequoias	37	1182	738	346	98	13	.917
2.423076923076923 6	Porterville	32	887	565	247	75	14	.915
2.140597539543058 7	Coalinga	32	789	528	193	68	28	.914
5.86046511627907 8	Cerro Coso	8	224	129	57	38	4	.830

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
2.067047075606277 1	Fresno City	37	17	21	8	.276	2
5.86046511627907 2	Cerro Coso	8	3	6	2	.250	0
2.2972972972972974 3	Taft	39	19	39	13	.250	0
6.2771739130434785 4	Merced	37	10	35	8	.186	0
3.6944444444444446 5	Sequoias	37	6	38	6	.136	0
2.140597539543058 6	Coalinga	32	14	44	4	.083	0
1.365606936416185 7	Reedley	37	10	44	4	.083	0
2.423076923076923 8	Porterville	32	9	54	2	.036	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
1.365606936416185 1	Reedley	14.0	735	53
3.6944444444444446 2	Sequoias	24.0	900	38
2.067047075606277 3	Fresno City	18.0	50	3
6.2771739130434785 4	Merced	20.0	0	0
5.86046511627907 5	Cerro Coso	5.0	0	0
2.140597539543058 6	Coalinga	15.0	0	0
2.2972972972972974 7	Taft	16.0	-	-
2.423076923076923 8	Porterville	8.0	0	0

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
4.032 1	Sequoias	18	519	172	77	36	30	.331	.389	.401
2.333333333333333 2	Taft	18	538	182	94	37	48	.338	.397	.442
1.68 3	Fresno City	18	487	144	82	45	48	.296	.359	.439
6.494845360824741 4	Merced	20	553	170	90	32	39	.307	.351	.438
1.7703488372093024 5	Porterville	18	478	128	57	58	72	.268	.356	.351
1.5 6	Reedley	19	511	137	79	36	69	.268	.329	.378
2.4705882352941178 7	Coalinga	19	480	121	65	48	52	.252	.332	.298
5.068965517241379 8	Cerro Coso	6	113	20	2	4	17	.177	.212	.230

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
1.68 1	Fresno City	18	37	3	9	49
2.333333333333333 2	Taft	18	25	2	9	36
6.494845360824741 3	Merced	20	27	6	11	44
1.5 4	Reedley	19	19	5	9	33
4.032 5	Sequoias	18	27	3	1	31
1.7703488372093024 6	Porterville	18	25	3	3	31
2.4705882352941178 7	Coalinga	19	12	2	2	16
5.068965517241379 8	Cerro Coso	6	4	1	0	5

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
1.68 1	Fresno City	18	98	214	28	1
2.333333333333333 2	Taft	18	118	238	41	7
4.032 3	Sequoias	18	99	208	32	3
6.494845360824741 4	Merced	20	104	242	15	5
1.5 5	Reedley	19	97	193	14	6
1.7703488372093024 6	Porterville	18	67	168	2	1
2.4705882352941178 7	Coalinga	19	79	143	2	2
5.068965517241379 8	Cerro Coso	6	3	26	1	1

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
2.333333333333333 1	Taft	18	21	8	18	-	0	-	-	622
4.032 2	Sequoias	18	15	4	32	-	110	87	1.26	606
1.68 3	Fresno City	18	5	3	20	4	65	65	1.00	560
6.494845360824741 4	Merced	20	7	3	7	6	110	133	.83	602
1.5 5	Reedley	19	14	7	17	14	63	66	.95	585
1.7703488372093024 6	Porterville	18	10	4	11	2	38	32	1.19	561
2.4705882352941178 7	Coalinga	19	10	1	12	-	20	13	1.54	551
5.068965517241379 8	Cerro Coso	6	1	0	1	1	29	21	1.38	119

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
5.068965517241379 1	Cerro Coso	6	6	29.0	70	72	38	9.17
2.4705882352941178 2	Coalinga	19	19	113.1	181	115	76	4.69
1.7703488372093024 3	Porterville	18	18	114.2	180	106	74	4.52
1.68 4	Fresno City	18	18	116.2	154	79	57	3.42
1.5 5	Reedley	19	19	116.2	155	110	74	4.44
2.333333333333333 6	Taft	18	18	123.0	115	65	40	2.28
6.494845360824741 7	Merced	20	20	129.1	98	46	37	2.00
4.032 8	Sequoias	18	18	125.0	119	72	39	2.18

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
6.494845360824741 1	Merced	20	20	120	6.49	2	1.09
5.068965517241379 2	Cerro Coso	6	6	21	5.07	3	2.76
4.032 3	Sequoias	18	18	72	4.03	5	1.38
1.7703488372093024 4	Porterville	18	18	29	1.77	2	1.87
2.333333333333333 5	Taft	18	18	41	2.33	6	1.23
2.4705882352941178 6	Coalinga	19	19	40	2.47	7	1.90
1.68 7	Fresno City	18	18	28	1.68	12	1.65
1.5 8	Reedley	19	19	25	1.50	5	1.76

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
1.68 1	Fresno City	18	553	350	175	28	2	.949
1.5 2	Reedley	19	492	293	164	35	6	.929
6.494845360824741 3	Merced	20	532	388	119	25	7	.953
2.333333333333333 4	Taft	18	575	368	170	37	2	.936
4.032 5	Sequoias	18	591	375	166	50	5	.915
1.7703488372093024 6	Porterville	18	472	305	125	42	7	.911
2.4705882352941178 7	Coalinga	19	459	310	106	43	16	.906
5.068965517241379 8	Cerro Coso	6	158	87	39	32	3	.797

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
1.68 1	Fresno City	18	8	10	4	.286	1
5.068965517241379 2	Cerro Coso	6	3	1	1	.500	0
2.333333333333333 3	Taft	18	10	11	2	.154	0
6.494845360824741 4	Merced	20	7	13	1	.071	0
4.032 5	Sequoias	18	4	14	6	.300	0
2.4705882352941178 6	Coalinga	19	10	32	3	.086	0
1.5 7	Reedley	19	6	21	3	.125	0
1.7703488372093024 8	Porterville	18	8	31	1	.031	0

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
1.5 1	Reedley	10.0	385	39
4.032 2	Sequoias	10.0	400	40
1.68 3	Fresno City	8.0	50	7
6.494845360824741 4	Merced	10.0	0	0
5.068965517241379 5	Cerro Coso	4.0	0	0
2.4705882352941178 6	Coalinga	11.0	-	-
2.333333333333333 7	Taft	8.0	-	-
1.7703488372093024 8	Porterville	7.0	0	0