California Community College Athletic Association

Team Stats

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
10.0 1	Sequoias	42	1147	421	240	84	138	.367	.413	.476
10.0 1	Reedley	42	1149	374	246	115	135	.326	.402	.445
7.0 3	Fresno City	39	1042	339	208	90	121	.325	.391	.449
4.0 4	Porterville	37	985	307	211	112	120	.312	.393	.438
4.0 4	Taft	40	1038	297	167	88	189	.286	.356	.459
3.0 6	Merced	40	1054	276	138	117	148	.262	.344	.318
3.0 6	Coalinga	34	874	218	121	70	204	.249	.317	.311
10.0 8	Cerro Coso	37	790	180	64	33	154	.228	.278	.277

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
4.0 1	Taft	40	53	9	36	98
10.0 2	Reedley	42	67	14	14	95
7.0 3	Fresno City	39	55	13	16	84
10.0 4	Sequoias	42	50	15	15	80
4.0 5	Porterville	37	47	10	19	76
3.0 6	Merced	40	37	8	2	47
3.0 6	Coalinga	34	30	9	2	41
10.0 8	Cerro Coso	37	16	4	5	25

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
10.0 1	Cerro Coso	37	73	219	9	10
10.0 1	Reedley	42	293	511	66	10
10.0 1	Sequoias	42	304	546	54	10
7.0 4	Fresno City	39	246	468	88	7
4.0 5	Porterville	37	238	431	25	4
4.0 5	Taft	40	204	476	27	4
3.0 7	Coalinga	34	138	272	16	3
3.0 7	Merced	40	172	335	41	3

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
10.0 1	Reedley	42	40	11	34	6	246	178	1.38	1349
10.0 1	Sequoias	42	13	10	75	31	221	140	1.58	1329
3.0 3	Merced	40	16	2	22	7	238	213	1.12	1211
7.0 4	Fresno City	39	25	5	34	4	82	90	.91	1196
4.0 5	Taft	40	28	5	18	3	103	75	1.37	1177
4.0 5	Porterville	37	30	15	24	4	165	143	1.15	1166
3.0 7	Coalinga	34	19	5	12	4	95	41	2.32	980
10.0 8	Cerro Coso	37	23	4	3	8	161	143	1.13	853

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
10.0 1	Cerro Coso	37	37	185.1	465	437	308	11.63
3.0 2	Coalinga	34	34	195.1	343	311	228	8.17
4.0 3	Taft	40	40	239.0	396	288	194	5.68
7.0 4	Fresno City	39	39	245.1	306	154	124	3.54
4.0 5	Porterville	37	37	220.1	254	158	107	3.40
10.0 6	Reedley	42	42	270.2	262	141	103	2.66
10.0 6	Sequoias	42	42	251.0	225	103	87	2.43
3.0 8	Merced	40	40	254.2	229	131	88	2.42

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
10.0 1	Cerro Coso	37	37	72	2.72	14	2.88
3.0 2	Coalinga	34	34	51	1.83	14	2.39
4.0 3	Taft	40	40	79	2.31	24	2.05
7.0 4	Fresno City	39	39	98	2.80	17	1.58
4.0 5	Porterville	37	37	151	4.80	13	1.44
10.0 6	Reedley	42	42	258	6.67	8	1.40
10.0 6	Sequoias	42	42	217	6.05	9	1.21
3.0 8	Merced	40	40	267	7.34	3	1.19

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
7.0 1	Fresno City	39	1066	728	299	39	11	.963
10.0 2	Sequoias	42	938	678	221	39	10	.958
3.0 3	Merced	40	1138	751	331	56	14	.951
10.0 4	Reedley	42	1043	717	264	62	24	.941
4.0 5	Porterville	37	1022	664	289	69	18	.932
4.0 5	Taft	40	1078	698	285	95	26	.912
3.0 7	Coalinga	34	901	584	228	89	20	.901
10.0 8	Cerro Coso	37	874	471	228	175	41	.800

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
4.0 1	Porterville	37	13	37	5	.119	0
10.0 2	Reedley	42	5	38	5	.116	0
7.0 3	Fresno City	39	11	26	3	.103	0
10.0 4	Sequoias	42	2	38	4	.095	0
4.0 5	Taft	40	12	47	4	.078	0
3.0 6	Coalinga	34	4	59	4	.063	0
10.0 7	Cerro Coso	37	4	77	4	.049	0
3.0 8	Merced	40	1	68	3	.042	1

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
10.0 1	Reedley	21.0	1,642	79
10.0 1	Sequoias	15.0	750	50
3.0 3	Coalinga	16.0	50	4
10.0 4	Cerro Coso	14.0	40	3
7.0 5	Fresno City	19.0	-	-
4.0 6	Porterville	18.0	0	0
4.0 6	Taft	19.0	0	0
3.0 8	Merced	15.0	0	0

Rk	Team	gp	ab	h	rbi	bb	k	avg	obp	slg
6.0 1	Sequoias	21	603	233	134	44	61	.386	.426	.499
4.0 2	Reedley	21	566	189	143	60	67	.334	.416	.473
4.0 2	Fresno City	21	566	195	125	50	61	.345	.414	.465
0.0 4	Porterville	21	564	168	103	50	73	.298	.365	.431
2.0 5	Taft	21	531	148	85	38	101	.279	.343	.460
2.0 5	Merced	21	598	174	95	63	72	.291	.370	.349
2.0 5	Coalinga	21	541	137	83	35	133	.253	.309	.312
2.0 5	Cerro Coso	21	424	83	24	18	100	.196	.248	.233

Rk	Team	gp	2b	3b	hr	xbh
2.0 1	Taft	21	35	2	19	56
4.0 2	Reedley	21	38	7	9	54
4.0 2	Fresno City	21	34	5	8	47
6.0 4	Sequoias	21	31	8	7	46
0.0 5	Porterville	21	29	2	14	45
2.0 6	Merced	21	25	5	0	30
2.0 6	Coalinga	21	17	6	1	24
2.0 6	Cerro Coso	21	6	2	2	10

Rk	Team	gp	r	tb	sb	cs
2.0 1	Cerro Coso	21	29	99	7	2
4.0 2	Reedley	21	171	268	48	4
6.0 3	Sequoias	21	180	301	32	6
4.0 4	Fresno City	21	155	263	62	4
0.0 5	Porterville	21	117	243	8	0
2.0 6	Taft	21	99	244	17	2
2.0 6	Coalinga	21	91	169	9	2
2.0 6	Merced	21	115	209	31	2

Rk	Team	gp	hbp	sf	sh	hdp	go	fo	go/fo	pa
4.0 1	Reedley	21	25	8	15	1	127	91	1.40	674
6.0 2	Sequoias	21	4	8	37	-	115	68	1.69	696
2.0 3	Merced	21	12	0	10	5	117	132	.89	683
4.0 4	Fresno City	21	20	4	19	1	49	51	.96	659
2.0 5	Taft	21	15	2	9	1	41	21	1.95	595
0.0 6	Porterville	21	13	6	15	2	84	83	1.01	648
2.0 7	Coalinga	21	10	3	7	1	71	24	2.96	596
2.0 7	Cerro Coso	21	12	1	2	5	75	87	.86	457

Rk	Team	app	gs	ip	h	r	er	era
2.0 1	Cerro Coso	21	21	105.0	269	271	197	13.13
2.0 1	Coalinga	21	21	118.1	206	174	130	7.69
2.0 1	Taft	21	21	125.0	220	156	103	5.77
4.0 4	Fresno City	21	21	128.1	162	87	75	4.09
0.0 5	Porterville	21	21	131.1	166	115	88	4.69
4.0 6	Reedley	21	21	127.2	109	59	43	2.36
6.0 7	Sequoias	21	21	127.0	92	36	33	1.82
2.0 8	Merced	21	21	139.2	103	59	39	1.95

Rk	Team	app	gs	k	k/7	hr	whip
2.0 1	Cerro Coso	21	21	38	2.53	7	2.92
2.0 1	Coalinga	21	21	32	1.89	9	2.30
2.0 1	Taft	21	21	50	2.80	15	2.13
4.0 4	Fresno City	21	21	54	2.95	8	1.68
0.0 5	Porterville	21	21	88	4.69	11	1.56
4.0 6	Reedley	21	21	138	7.57	2	1.26
6.0 7	Sequoias	21	21	109	6.01	6	0.91
2.0 8	Merced	21	21	156	7.82	2	1.03

Rk	Team	gp	tc	po	a	e	pb	f%
4.0 1	Fresno City	21	553	385	146	22	8	.960
6.0 2	Sequoias	21	497	364	109	24	4	.952
2.0 3	Merced	21	610	419	159	32	13	.948
4.0 4	Reedley	21	543	382	132	29	8	.947
0.0 5	Porterville	21	598	394	161	43	12	.928
2.0 6	Taft	21	583	375	156	52	15	.911
2.0 6	Coalinga	21	563	354	161	48	18	.915
2.0 6	Cerro Coso	21	547	297	134	116	34	.788

Rk	Team	gp	dp	sba	rcs	rcs%	ci
0.0 1	Porterville	21	7	22	2	.083	0
4.0 2	Reedley	21	5	19	4	.174	0
4.0 2	Fresno City	21	5	14	2	.125	0
6.0 4	Sequoias	21	0	19	2	.095	0
2.0 5	Taft	21	7	22	3	.120	0
2.0 5	Coalinga	21	3	27	4	.129	0
2.0 5	Cerro Coso	21	2	58	1	.017	0
2.0 5	Merced	21	1	30	3	.091	1

Rk	Team	home games	attend	avg
4.0 1	Reedley	9.0	347	39
6.0 2	Sequoias	10.0	500	50
2.0 3	Coalinga	9.0	50	6
2.0 3	Cerro Coso	12.0	40	4
4.0 5	Fresno City	11.0	-	-
0.0 6	Porterville	11.0	0	0
2.0 7	Taft	12.0	0	0
2.0 7	Merced	10.0	0	0