Rk
1 Coalinga 27 684 138 202 46 3 11 118 89 84 60 13 .295 .379 .420
2 Fresno City 31 776 154 219 45 3 12 115 93 92 88 9 .282 .365 .394
3 Merced 24 585 88 168 38 5 1 74 48 103 10 4 .287 .350 .374
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 865 158 214 34 4 15 145 94 128 34 7 .247 .332 .348
6 Sequoias 33 949 207 318 61 6 9 190 101 86 21 0 .335 .404 .440
7 Taft 32 905 183 306 53 8 10 160 103 105 46 7 .338 .411 .448
Rk
1 Coalinga 27 8 8 5 287 60 9 76 86 .88 794
2 Fresno City 31 14 9 16 306 60 7 137 190 .72 908
3 Merced 24 10 2 3 219 44 1 149 114 1.31 648
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 35 18 6 17 301 53 9 229 242 .95 1000
6 Sequoias 33 17 11 16 418 76 10 230 234 .98 1094
7 Taft 32 14 8 24 405 71 4 201 240 .84 1054
Rk
1 Coalinga 27 160.0 256 185 152 79 121 5.29 8 6.65 2.09
2 Fresno City 31 199.2 184 84 73 63 164 5.75 10 2.56 1.24
3 Merced 24 135.2 280 225 200 70 27 1.39 18 10.32 2.58
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 35 223.1 324 220 180 88 68 2.13 13 5.64 1.84
6 Sequoias 33 222.0 184 85 60 51 191 6.02 5 1.89 1.06
7 Taft 32 216.0 274 164 110 81 133 4.31 12 3.56 1.64
Rk
1 Coalinga 27 691 482 158 51 .926 4 49 5 .093 15 0
2 Fresno City 31 760 598 140 22 .971 6 15 6 .286 2 0
2 Merced 24 617 407 148 62 .900 1 43 3 .065 28 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 990 661 273 56 .943 4 56 6 .097 7 0
6 Sequoias 33 892 661 194 37 .959 2 63 5 .074 23 0
6 Taft 32 943 609 275 59 .937 6 40 12 .231 8 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 15.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 15.0 0 0
2 Merced 13.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 17.0 600 36
6 Sequoias 18.0 1,100 62
7 Taft 11.0 0 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 9 235 38 73 20 0 4 37 16 30 19 3 .311 .357 .447
2 Fresno City 11 275 62 91 18 2 7 49 38 24 27 3 .331 .412 .487
3 Merced 12 317 46 94 25 2 1 41 24 54 8 2 .297 .357 .397
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 12 293 47 62 13 3 7 44 31 55 13 2 .212 .308 .348
6 Sequoias 11 328 72 119 21 1 3 66 29 25 11 0 .363 .421 .460
7 Taft 9 253 54 83 4 4 5 50 27 30 8 2 .328 .392 .435
Rk
1 Coalinga 9 3 4 0 105 24 2 21 35 .60 258
2 Fresno City 11 4 6 9 134 27 1 53 112 .47 332
3 Merced 12 7 2 0 126 28 1 61 64 .95 350
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 12 10 0 6 102 23 2 60 96 .63 340
6 Sequoias 11 6 3 5 151 25 1 56 91 .62 371
7 Taft 9 3 5 7 110 13 1 66 70 .94 295
Rk
1 Coalinga 9 52.1 92 71 53 26 37 4.95 4 7.09 2.25
2 Fresno City 11 70.1 65 32 27 32 62 6.17 2 2.69 1.38
3 Merced 12 69.2 126 92 76 37 15 1.51 8 7.64 2.34
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 12 78.0 115 63 58 25 16 1.44 6 5.21 1.79
6 Sequoias 11 71.0 63 24 18 22 57 5.62 2 1.77 1.20
7 Taft 9 60.2 61 38 28 24 30 3.46 5 3.23 1.40
Rk
1 Coalinga 9 232 156 51 25 .892 - 15 2 .118 4 0
2 Fresno City 11 270 211 53 6 .978 3 2 3 .600 1 0
2 Merced 12 316 209 76 31 .902 1 19 1 .050 18 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 12 338 234 88 16 .953 1 22 1 .043 0 0
6 Sequoias 11 269 208 52 9 .967 - 20 2 .091 5 0
6 Taft 9 278 182 81 15 .946 3 8 1 .111 3 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 5.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 6.0 0 0
2 Merced 5.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 7.0 100 15
6 Sequoias 5.0 250 50
7 Taft 4.0 0 0