California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
81.0 1	Fresno City	45	1584	490	292	218	295	.309	.414	.435
46.0 2	Cerro Coso	40	1393	420	243	117	297	.302	.370	.439
57.0 3	Taft	43	1547	449	266	200	378	.290	.390	.441
51.0 4	Sequoias	42	1430	394	197	191	234	.276	.376	.357
67.0 5	Reedley	43	1509	415	257	194	245	.275	.377	.350
72.0 6	Merced	40	1392	379	238	176	295	.272	.378	.387
39.0 7	Porterville	40	1277	272	112	132	308	.213	.305	.269
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	1181	241	77	118	361	.204	.290	.245

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
81.0 1	Fresno City	45	101	13	24	138
57.0 2	Taft	43	77	11	45	133
46.0 3	Cerro Coso	40	87	13	26	126
72.0 4	Merced	40	65	13	23	101
51.0 5	Sequoias	42	76	7	9	92
67.0 6	Reedley	43	55	14	10	79
39.0 7	Porterville	40	42	10	3	55
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	39	3	1	43

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
81.0 1	Fresno City	45	332	689	55	16
57.0 2	Taft	43	313	683	66	26
67.0 3	Reedley	43	301	528	19	11
72.0 4	Merced	40	286	539	44	15
46.0 5	Cerro Coso	40	269	611	28	9
51.0 6	Sequoias	42	238	511	25	12
39.0 7	Porterville	40	132	343	42	18
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	86	289	21	13

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
81.0 1	Fresno City	45	81	24	27	42	367	431	.85	1934
72.0 2	Merced	40	72	17	36	24	340	369	.92	1693
67.0 3	Reedley	43	67	24	32	37	414	418	.99	1826
57.0 4	Taft	43	57	8	18	17	325	358	.91	1830
51.0 5	Sequoias	42	51	20	35	42	421	380	1.11	1727
46.0 6	Cerro Coso	40	46	20	17	29	317	344	.92	1593
39.0 7	Porterville	40	39	3	29	24	384	303	1.27	1480
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	26	2	2	20	308	240	1.28	1329

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
26.0 1	Coalinga	36	36	306.1	484	445	380	11.16
39.0 2	Porterville	40	40	338.2	463	362	311	8.26
46.0 3	Cerro Coso	40	40	338.2	422	276	220	5.85
57.0 4	Taft	43	43	375.2	399	263	204	4.89
72.0 5	Merced	40	40	354.2	323	234	190	4.82
51.0 6	Sequoias	42	42	374.2	358	182	140	3.36
67.0 7	Reedley	43	43	389.2	350	184	142	3.28
81.0 8	Fresno City	45	45	403.1	355	199	130	2.90

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
26.0 1	Coalinga	36	36	214	6.29	14	2.30
39.0 2	Porterville	40	40	206	5.47	17	2.02
46.0 3	Cerro Coso	40	40	285	7.57	12	1.80
57.0 4	Taft	43	43	303	7.26	21	1.58
72.0 5	Merced	40	40	293	7.44	17	1.46
81.0 6	Fresno City	45	45	420	9.37	12	1.40
51.0 7	Sequoias	42	42	332	7.98	17	1.24
67.0 8	Reedley	43	43	283	6.54	14	1.23

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
51.0 1	Sequoias	42	1620	1124	438	58	2	.964
72.0 2	Merced	40	1549	1064	426	59	12	.962
57.0 3	Taft	43	1625	1127	432	66	16	.959
39.0 4	Porterville	40	1443	1016	368	59	62	.959
81.0 5	Fresno City	45	1695	1210	406	79	28	.953
46.0 6	Cerro Coso	40	1495	1015	409	71	10	.953
67.0 7	Reedley	43	1753	1169	498	86	4	.951
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	1308	922	275	111	10	.915

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
72.0 1	Merced	40	28	26	30	.536	-
51.0 2	Sequoias	42	30	17	12	.414	-
67.0 3	Reedley	43	36	31	18	.367	-
46.0 4	Cerro Coso	40	30	28	13	.317	-
57.0 5	Taft	43	33	60	15	.200	1
39.0 6	Porterville	40	20	72	16	.182	-
81.0 7	Fresno City	45	31	36	6	.143	1
26.0 8	Coalinga	36	20	63	10	.137	-

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
81.0 1	Fresno City	24	5,434	227
67.0 2	Reedley	23	3,049	133
57.0 3	Taft	19	415	22
46.0 4	Cerro Coso	20	400	20
26.0 5	Coalinga	18	135	8
39.0 6	Porterville	22	50	3
72.0 7	Merced	17	0	0
51.0 8	Sequoias	23	0	0

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
39.0 1	Fresno City	21	747	243	158	103	116	.325	.425	.461
29.0 2	Cerro Coso	21	740	198	117	61	161	.268	.344	.380
25.0 3	Taft	21	748	221	126	89	164	.295	.386	.439
33.0 4	Sequoias	21	739	217	129	112	115	.294	.404	.388
32.0 5	Reedley	21	718	200	133	103	118	.279	.386	.361
48.0 6	Merced	21	722	205	131	95	143	.284	.398	.392
20.0 7	Porterville	21	695	163	70	68	172	.235	.319	.291
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	687	140	45	57	208	.204	.278	.246

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
39.0 1	Fresno City	21	50	9	11	70
25.0 2	Taft	21	28	5	23	56
29.0 3	Cerro Coso	21	40	5	11	56
48.0 4	Merced	21	33	6	11	50
33.0 5	Sequoias	21	49	3	5	57
32.0 6	Reedley	21	27	7	6	40
20.0 7	Porterville	21	22	4	3	29
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	22	2	1	25

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
39.0 1	Fresno City	21	175	344	29	6
25.0 2	Taft	21	148	328	23	15
32.0 3	Reedley	21	151	259	12	5
48.0 4	Merced	21	151	283	16	9
29.0 5	Cerro Coso	21	131	281	7	4
33.0 6	Sequoias	21	150	287	13	4
20.0 7	Porterville	21	81	202	23	7
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	51	169	12	6

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
39.0 1	Fresno City	21	39	16	11	24	163	225	.72	916
48.0 2	Merced	21	48	10	18	14	165	210	.79	893
32.0 3	Reedley	21	32	15	14	21	196	206	.95	882
25.0 4	Taft	21	25	5	9	7	155	196	.79	876
33.0 5	Sequoias	21	33	11	20	19	212	195	1.09	915
29.0 6	Cerro Coso	21	29	8	12	15	160	211	.76	850
20.0 7	Porterville	21	20	3	17	14	191	167	1.14	803
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	14	-	1	15	179	146	1.23	759

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
14.0 1	Coalinga	21	21	176.2	276	264	224	11.41
20.0 2	Porterville	21	21	180.2	250	197	176	8.77
29.0 3	Cerro Coso	21	21	184.1	231	143	116	5.66
25.0 4	Taft	21	21	184.1	189	121	97	4.74
48.0 5	Merced	21	21	185.2	148	85	65	3.15
33.0 6	Sequoias	21	21	188.2	163	78	64	3.05
32.0 7	Reedley	21	21	189.2	155	69	51	2.42
39.0 8	Fresno City	21	21	190.0	170	76	54	2.56

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/9	hr	whip
14.0 1	Coalinga	21	21	109	5.55	7	2.29
20.0 2	Porterville	21	21	95	4.73	13	2.01
29.0 3	Cerro Coso	21	21	147	7.18	6	1.75
25.0 4	Taft	21	21	148	7.23	9	1.51
48.0 5	Merced	21	21	151	7.32	7	1.22
39.0 6	Fresno City	21	21	217	10.28	8	1.39
33.0 7	Sequoias	21	21	181	8.63	10	1.10
32.0 8	Reedley	21	21	149	7.07	11	1.07

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
33.0 1	Sequoias	21	820	566	231	23	1	.972
48.0 2	Merced	21	788	557	206	25	4	.968
25.0 3	Taft	21	780	553	199	28	7	.964
20.0 4	Porterville	21	766	542	194	30	31	.961
39.0 5	Fresno City	21	786	570	185	31	6	.961
29.0 6	Cerro Coso	21	813	552	222	39	3	.952
32.0 7	Reedley	21	836	569	227	40	2	.952
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	754	533	153	68	4	.910

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
48.0 1	Merced	21	17	9	11	.550	-
33.0 2	Sequoias	21	16	2	5	.714	-
32.0 3	Reedley	21	18	11	8	.421	-
29.0 4	Cerro Coso	21	19	12	5	.294	-
25.0 5	Taft	21	17	19	8	.296	-
20.0 6	Porterville	21	11	29	12	.293	-
39.0 7	Fresno City	21	17	13	3	.188	-
14.0 8	Coalinga	21	14	40	1	.024	-

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
39.0 1	Fresno City	11	2,965	270
32.0 2	Reedley	11	1,733	158
25.0 3	Taft	11	190	18
29.0 4	Cerro Coso	10	210	21
14.0 5	Coalinga	10	0	0
20.0 6	Porterville	10	50	5
48.0 7	Merced	11	0	0
33.0 8	Sequoias	10	0	0