Rk
1 Fresno 38 1057 247 350 63 13 19 222 108 126 62 9 .331 .397 .469
2 Merced 34 925 170 266 47 14 5 153 78 132 57 6 .288 .353 .385
3 Porterville 37 944 217 274 55 4 12 181 132 138 29 6 .290 .386 .395
4 Reedley 28 733 125 195 37 8 5 99 64 115 44 7 .266 .335 .359
5 Sequoias 36 990 251 348 60 12 4 214 103 79 59 10 .352 .417 .448
6 Taft - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 33 838 151 248 42 3 3 127 98 140 52 5 .296 .378 .364
Rk
1 Fresno 38 16 14 28 496 95 5 78 95 .82 1223
2 Merced 34 21 9 7 356 66 4 129 202 .64 1040
3 Porterville 37 19 7 25 373 71 4 83 85 .98 1127
4 Reedley 28 13 2 18 263 50 1 95 109 .87 830
5 Sequoias 36 13 7 41 444 76 14 255 155 1.65 1154
6 Taft - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
7 West Hills Coalinga 33 16 6 16 305 48 1 38 49 .78 974
Rk
1 Fresno 38 241.1 293 158 113 90 90 2.61 8 3.28 -
2 Merced 34 218.0 248 156 136 105 155 4.98 8 4.37 -
2 Porterville 37 223.0 334 219 138 62 77 2.42 3 4.33 -
2 Reedley 28 167.1 243 202 162 120 58 2.43 9 6.78 -
2 Sequoias 36 224.1 248 151 111 110 145 4.52 6 3.46 -
2 Taft - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 -
2 West Hills Coalinga 33 204.2 286 229 139 97 158 5.40 10 4.75 -
Rk
1 Fresno 38 949 684 214 51 .946 10 29 5 .147 5 0
2 Merced 34 932 654 225 53 .943 4 53 4 .070 11 0
2 Porterville 37 1037 642 317 78 .925 5 65 0 .000 18 0
2 Reedley 28 629 467 119 43 .932 4 46 1 .021 6 0
2 Sequoias 36 893 659 186 48 .946 6 57 6 .095 5 0
2 Taft - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 33 882 607 187 88 .900 0 54 2 .036 22 0
Rk
1 Fresno 14.0 - -
2 Merced 18.0 0 0
3 Porterville 16.0 0 0
3 Reedley 14.0 0 0
3 Sequoias 22.0 1,050 48
6 Taft - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 20.0 0 0
Rk
1 Fresno 15 426 123 156 30 7 10 109 50 43 34 3 .366 .429 .540
2 Merced 15 426 95 137 29 7 2 87 42 67 40 3 .322 .394 .437
3 Porterville 15 387 70 106 25 0 5 56 60 61 7 1 .274 .379 .377
4 Reedley 15 410 63 116 20 5 2 54 37 57 20 6 .283 .357 .371
5 Sequoias 14 397 100 135 24 0 2 70 39 33 28 3 .340 .403 .416
6 Taft - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 14 349 42 92 12 1 1 36 40 59 14 1 .264 .348 .312
Rk
1 Fresno 15 6 12 8 230 47 0 25 43 .58 502
2 Merced 15 12 5 2 186 38 0 32 76 .42 487
3 Porterville 15 7 3 13 146 30 1 31 29 1.07 470
4 Reedley 15 11 1 12 152 27 0 27 40 .68 471
5 Sequoias 14 4 2 23 165 26 3 110 57 1.93 465
6 Taft - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
7 West Hills Coalinga 14 7 3 11 109 14 0 13 15 .87 410
Rk
1 Fresno 15 95.0 106 47 37 33 42 3.09 0 2.73 -
2 Merced 15 96.1 116 69 58 47 67 4.87 3 4.21 -
2 Porterville 15 93.0 161 106 70 28 33 2.48 1 5.27 -
2 Reedley 15 99.0 130 111 86 70 42 2.97 3 6.08 -
2 Sequoias 14 90.1 92 52 40 48 78 6.04 1 3.10 -
2 Taft - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 -
2 West Hills Coalinga 14 88.0 135 112 75 46 69 5.49 9 5.97 -
Rk
1 Fresno 15 392 283 97 12 .969 3 8 1 .111 2 0
2 Merced 15 405 289 93 23 .943 2 24 3 .111 3 0
2 Porterville 15 458 284 139 35 .924 0 35 0 .000 9 0
2 Reedley 15 364 285 52 27 .926 1 27 1 .036 2 0
2 Sequoias 14 343 259 62 22 .936 1 28 4 .125 3 0
2 Taft - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 14 368 264 65 39 .894 0 20 0 .000 7 0
Rk
1 Fresno 6.0 - -
2 Merced 7.0 0 0
3 Porterville 6.0 0 0
3 Reedley 9.0 0 0
3 Sequoias 9.0 450 50
6 Taft - - -
7 West Hills Coalinga 6.0 0 0