Rk
1 Coalinga 24 611 132 182 43 3 11 112 83 76 60 12 .298 .382 .432
2 Fresno City 30 749 153 213 42 3 12 114 92 79 85 9 .284 .369 .397
3 Merced 23 562 78 157 33 4 1 64 44 100 10 4 .279 .339 .358
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 33 808 149 197 31 3 14 137 91 120 31 7 .244 .332 .342
6 Sequoias 33 949 207 318 61 6 9 190 101 86 21 0 .335 .404 .440
7 Taft 31 877 182 300 53 8 10 159 102 102 46 7 .342 .416 .455
Rk
1 Coalinga 24 5 8 3 264 57 8 48 67 .72 710
2 Fresno City 30 14 9 16 297 57 7 134 185 .72 880
3 Merced 23 8 2 3 201 38 1 148 106 1.40 619
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 33 18 6 16 276 48 9 219 237 .92 939
6 Sequoias 33 17 11 16 418 76 10 230 234 .98 1094
7 Taft 31 14 8 24 399 71 4 189 235 .80 1025
Rk
1 Coalinga 24 144.0 219 158 126 71 110 5.35 6 6.13 2.01
2 Fresno City 30 192.2 176 81 71 63 157 5.70 9 2.58 1.24
3 Merced 23 130.2 274 223 198 70 26 1.39 18 10.61 2.63
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 33 209.1 307 211 172 85 62 2.07 12 5.75 1.87
6 Sequoias 33 222.0 184 85 60 51 191 6.02 5 1.89 1.06
7 Taft 31 210.0 266 160 107 79 132 4.40 12 3.57 1.64
Rk
1 Coalinga 24 624 434 141 49 .921 3 48 5 .094 14 0
2 Fresno City 30 734 577 136 21 .971 6 15 5 .250 1 0
2 Merced 23 599 392 145 62 .896 1 43 3 .065 27 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 33 923 619 250 54 .941 4 56 6 .097 7 0
6 Sequoias 33 892 661 194 37 .959 2 63 5 .074 23 0
6 Taft 31 914 591 265 58 .937 6 40 12 .231 8 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 15.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 14.0 0 0
2 Merced 12.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 16.0 600 38
6 Sequoias 18.0 1,100 62
7 Taft 11.0 0 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 8 214 36 67 17 0 4 34 16 29 19 3 .313 .357 .449
2 Fresno City 11 275 62 91 18 2 7 49 38 24 27 3 .331 .412 .487
3 Merced 11 294 36 83 20 1 1 31 20 51 8 2 .282 .336 .367
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 11 267 43 54 11 2 7 41 29 54 13 2 .202 .304 .337
6 Sequoias 11 328 72 119 21 1 3 66 29 25 11 0 .363 .421 .460
7 Taft 8 225 53 77 4 4 5 49 26 27 8 2 .342 .409 .462
Rk
1 Coalinga 8 1 4 0 96 21 2 18 24 .75 235
2 Fresno City 11 4 6 9 134 27 1 53 112 .47 332
3 Merced 11 5 2 0 108 22 1 60 56 1.07 321
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 11 10 0 5 90 20 2 50 91 .55 311
6 Sequoias 11 6 3 5 151 25 1 56 91 .62 371
7 Taft 8 3 5 7 104 13 1 54 65 .83 266
Rk
1 Coalinga 8 48.1 81 61 43 22 34 4.92 4 6.23 2.13
2 Fresno City 11 70.1 65 32 27 32 62 6.17 2 2.69 1.38
3 Merced 11 64.2 120 90 74 37 14 1.52 8 8.01 2.43
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 11 71.0 109 62 57 24 13 1.28 6 5.62 1.87
6 Sequoias 11 71.0 63 24 18 22 57 5.62 2 1.77 1.20
7 Taft 8 54.2 53 34 25 22 29 3.71 5 3.20 1.37
Rk
1 Coalinga 8 218 144 50 24 .890 - 15 2 .118 4 0
2 Fresno City 11 270 211 53 6 .978 3 2 3 .600 1 0
2 Merced 11 298 194 73 31 .896 1 19 1 .050 17 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 11 306 213 78 15 .951 1 22 1 .043 0 0
6 Sequoias 11 269 208 52 9 .967 - 20 2 .091 5 0
6 Taft 8 249 164 71 14 .944 3 8 1 .111 3 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 5.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 6.0 0 0
2 Merced 4.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 6.0 100 17
6 Sequoias 5.0 250 50
7 Taft 4.0 0 0