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 26 652 110 192 42 5 1 91 59 112 15 4 .294 .361 .379
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 865 158 214 34 4 15 145 94 128 34 7 .247 .332 .348
6 Sequoias 35 1023 223 343 67 7 9 205 112 92 22 0 .335 .406 .441
7 Taft 34 966 188 320 55 8 10 165 106 118 49 7 .331 .402 .436
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 26 11 3 3 247 48 1 165 129 1.28 728
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 35 18 6 17 301 53 9 229 242 .95 1000
6 Sequoias 35 17 11 18 451 83 10 249 251 .99 1181
7 Taft 34 14 9 25 421 73 4 211 264 .80 1120
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 26 148.2 304 246 217 71 31 1.46 18 10.22 2.52
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 35 238.0 198 90 64 54 204 6.00 5 1.88 1.06
7 Taft 34 232.0 299 180 118 92 139 4.19 12 3.56 1.69
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 26 678 446 164 68 .900 1 48 3 .059 28 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 990 661 273 56 .943 4 56 6 .097 7 0
6 Sequoias 35 950 709 203 38 .960 2 66 5 .070 23 0
6 Taft 34 1018 657 294 67 .934 6 41 12 .226 11 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 13.0 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 13 402 88 144 27 2 3 81 40 31 12 0 .358 .421 .458
7 Taft 11 314 59 97 6 4 5 55 30 43 11 2 .309 .368 .401
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 13 6 3 7 184 32 1 75 108 .69 458
7 Taft 11 3 6 8 126 15 1 76 94 .81 361
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 13 87.0 77 29 22 25 70 5.63 2 1.77 1.17
7 Taft 11 76.2 86 54 36 35 36 3.29 5 3.29 1.58
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 13 327 256 61 10 .969 - 23 2 .080 5 0
6 Taft 11 353 230 100 23 .935 3 9 1 .100 6 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 6.0 0 0