Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer
California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk Team gp ab h rbi bb k avg obp slg
0.3864013266998342 1 Canyons 44 1206 466 332 155 104 .386 .455 .601
0.3699421965317919 2 Antelope Valley 44 1211 448 376 149 137 .370 .456 .614
0.3665768194070081 3 Citrus 40 1113 408 312 173 96 .367 .463 .579
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 994 298 134 81 125 .300 .362 .420
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 803 240 132 110 104 .299 .389 .394
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 770 184 96 50 161 .239 .296 .318
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 559 104 30 17 123 .186 .226 .236
.236 8 Barstow - - - - - - - - -
Rk Team gp 2b 3b hr xbh
0.3699421965317919 1 Antelope Valley 44 79 14 63 156
0.3864013266998342 2 Canyons 44 92 22 41 155
0.3665768194070081 3 Citrus 40 83 18 39 140
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 62 9 13 84
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 28 9 10 47
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 30 8 5 43
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 15 2 3 20
20 8 Barstow - - - - 0
Rk Team gp r tb sb cs
0.3699421965317919 1 Antelope Valley 44 420 744 32 4
0.3864013266998342 2 Canyons 44 374 725 115 23
0.3665768194070081 3 Citrus 40 359 644 15 4
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 186 417 14 1
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 166 316 20 3
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 113 245 29 9
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 40 132 7 4
4 8 Barstow - - 0 - -
Rk Team gp hbp sf sh hdp go fo go/fo pa
0.3699421965317919 1 Antelope Valley 44 53 11 38 10 115 140 .82 1462
0.3864013266998342 2 Canyons 44 16 22 20 10 229 281 .81 1419
0.3665768194070081 3 Citrus 40 32 7 33 12 289 268 1.08 1358
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 18 4 17 9 135 140 .96 1114
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 13 7 18 9 198 164 1.21 951
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 13 2 17 6 172 156 1.10 852
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 12 1 4 9 124 76 1.63 593
593 8 Barstow - - - - - - - - 0
Rk Team app gs ip h r er era
0.23896103896103896 1 Victor Valley 34 34 175.0 397 401 297 11.88
0.18604651162790697 2 LA Valley 31 31 131.0 263 272 194 10.37
0.298879202988792 3 Glendale 32 32 193.1 320 246 182 6.59
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 38 216.2 284 204 156 5.04
0.3665768194070081 5 Citrus 40 40 244.2 358 251 164 4.69
0.3864013266998342 6 Canyons 44 44 266.1 332 192 162 4.26
0.3699421965317919 7 Antelope Valley 44 44 266.0 253 165 120 3.16
3.16 8 Barstow - - 0.0 - - - 0.00
Rk Team app gs k k/7 hr whip
0.3864013266998342 1 Canyons 44 44 124 3.26 13 -
0.3699421965317919 2 Antelope Valley 44 44 187 4.92 17 -
0.3665768194070081 3 Citrus 40 40 90 2.57 21 -
0.29979879275653926 4 LA Mission 38 38 93 3.00 19 -
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 32 63 2.28 19 -
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 34 62 2.48 24 -
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 31 20 1.07 25 -
- 8 Barstow - - - - - -
Rk Team gp tc po a e pb f%
0.3864013266998342 1 Canyons 44 1157 780 326 51 8 .956
0.3699421965317919 2 Antelope Valley 44 1163 771 339 53 12 .954
0.29979879275653926 3 LA Mission 38 849 534 265 50 3 .941
0.3665768194070081 4 Citrus 40 1191 734 365 92 2 .923
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 32 908 575 254 79 12 .913
0.23896103896103896 6 Victor Valley 34 778 485 210 83 19 .893
0.18604651162790697 7 LA Valley 31 540 326 155 59 19 .891
.891 8 Barstow - 0 - - - - -
Rk Team gp dp sba rcs rcs% ci
0.3699421965317919 1 Antelope Valley 44 11 39 12 .235 0
0.23896103896103896 2 Victor Valley 34 19 50 13 .206 0
0.3864013266998342 3 Canyons 44 14 43 11 .204 1
0.3665768194070081 4 Citrus 40 14 53 10 .159 1
0.29979879275653926 5 LA Mission 38 8 34 6 .150 0
0.18604651162790697 6 LA Valley 31 4 86 5 .055 0
0.298879202988792 7 Glendale 32 6 46 1 .021 1
1 8 Barstow - - - - - -
Rk Team home games attend avg
0.3665768194070081 1 Citrus 24.0 1,562 66
0.3864013266998342 2 Canyons 21.0 855 41
0.18604651162790697 3 LA Valley 13.0 154 12
0.23896103896103896 4 Victor Valley 16.0 170 11
0.298879202988792 5 Glendale 15.0 103 7
0.3699421965317919 6 Antelope Valley 19.0 45 3
0.29979879275653926 7 LA Mission 12.0 25 3
3 8 Barstow - - -
Rk Team gp ab h rbi bb k avg obp slg
0.4081196581196581 1 Canyons 18 468 191 151 67 33 .408 .480 .662
0.42045454545454547 2 Antelope Valley 18 528 222 191 66 29 .420 .494 .735
0.3935361216730038 3 Citrus 18 526 207 166 80 32 .394 .479 .635
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 488 157 75 48 55 .322 .393 .439
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 452 148 89 75 45 .327 .422 .431
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 352 83 42 25 59 .236 .298 .364
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 269 46 13 10 53 .171 .215 .212
.212 8 Barstow - - - - - - - - -
Rk Team gp 2b 3b hr xbh
0.42045454545454547 1 Antelope Valley 18 33 8 39 80
0.4081196581196581 2 Canyons 18 40 11 19 70
0.3935361216730038 3 Citrus 18 41 13 20 74
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 24 6 7 37
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 16 5 7 28
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 14 8 5 27
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 4 2 1 7
7 8 Barstow - - - - 0
Rk Team gp r tb sb cs
0.42045454545454547 1 Antelope Valley 18 215 388 15 1
0.4081196581196581 2 Canyons 18 166 310 49 7
0.3935361216730038 3 Citrus 18 188 334 8 3
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 101 214 6 1
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 113 195 13 1
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 52 128 16 4
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 17 57 1 4
4 8 Barstow - - 0 - -
Rk Team gp hbp sf sh hdp go fo go/fo pa
0.42045454545454547 1 Antelope Valley 18 17 7 12 3 31 46 .67 630
0.4081196581196581 2 Canyons 18 10 13 11 5 102 101 1.01 569
0.3935361216730038 3 Citrus 18 10 4 12 4 122 111 1.10 632
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 11 2 9 4 75 64 1.17 558
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 4 7 9 6 111 97 1.14 547
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 7 2 7 4 73 76 .96 393
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 5 0 0 4 47 27 1.74 284
284 8 Barstow - - - - - - - - 0
Rk Team app gs ip h r er era
0.23579545454545456 1 Victor Valley 16 16 81.0 212 215 165 14.26
0.17100371747211895 2 LA Valley 16 16 64.2 133 141 117 12.66
0.3274336283185841 3 Glendale 18 18 106.1 185 153 117 7.70
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 18 101.2 148 109 88 6.06
0.3935361216730038 5 Citrus 18 18 104.2 129 83 61 4.08
0.4081196581196581 6 Canyons 18 18 106.2 117 70 58 3.81
0.42045454545454547 7 Antelope Valley 18 18 106.0 104 60 45 2.97
2.97 8 Barstow - - 0.0 - - - 0.00
Rk Team app gs k k/7 hr whip
0.4081196581196581 1 Canyons 18 18 62 4.07 4 -
0.42045454545454547 2 Antelope Valley 18 18 79 5.22 10 -
0.3935361216730038 3 Citrus 18 18 47 3.14 10 -
0.32172131147540983 4 LA Mission 18 18 37 2.55 15 -
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 18 36 2.37 15 -
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 16 27 2.33 19 -
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 16 13 1.41 20 -
- 8 Barstow - - - - - -
Rk Team gp tc po a e pb f%
0.4081196581196581 1 Canyons 18 460 316 121 23 0 .950
0.42045454545454547 2 Antelope Valley 18 432 298 120 14 3 .968
0.32172131147540983 3 LA Mission 18 436 287 127 22 0 .950
0.3935361216730038 4 Citrus 18 487 314 143 30 1 .938
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 18 501 316 136 49 6 .902
0.23579545454545456 6 Victor Valley 16 339 206 88 45 11 .867
0.17100371747211895 7 LA Valley 16 258 164 71 23 6 .911
.911 8 Barstow - 0 - - - - -
Rk Team gp dp sba rcs rcs% ci
0.42045454545454547 1 Antelope Valley 18 4 4 2 .333 0
0.23579545454545456 2 Victor Valley 16 8 22 5 .185 0
0.4081196581196581 3 Canyons 18 5 5 3 .375 0
0.3935361216730038 4 Citrus 18 8 6 2 .250 1
0.32172131147540983 5 LA Mission 18 3 18 5 .217 0
0.17100371747211895 6 LA Valley 16 3 31 0 .000 0
0.3274336283185841 7 Glendale 18 3 22 1 .043 0
0 8 Barstow - - - - - -
Rk Team home games attend avg
0.3935361216730038 1 Citrus 8.0 513 65
0.4081196581196581 2 Canyons 12.0 492 41
0.17100371747211895 3 LA Valley 7.0 54 8
0.23579545454545456 4 Victor Valley 8.0 110 14
0.3274336283185841 5 Glendale 9.0 35 4
0.42045454545454547 6 Antelope Valley 10.0 - -
0.32172131147540983 7 LA Mission 7.0 0 0
0 8 Barstow - - -