Rk
1 Coalinga 32 782 149 219 50 3 11 129 108 113 64 15 .280 .373 .394
2 Fresno City 37 944 219 292 62 6 22 175 122 103 109 12 .309 .394 .458
3 Merced 32 800 137 240 47 10 1 115 76 138 20 5 .300 .367 .388
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 865 158 214 34 4 15 145 94 128 34 7 .247 .332 .348
6 Sequoias 37 1074 232 360 68 7 11 214 116 95 26 0 .335 .405 .442
7 Taft 36 1021 192 331 57 8 10 169 107 127 51 7 .324 .393 .425
Rk
1 Coalinga 32 13 9 7 308 64 10 91 107 .85 919
2 Fresno City 37 18 12 18 432 90 7 157 230 .68 1114
3 Merced 32 12 5 3 310 58 4 190 173 1.10 896
4 Porterville - - - - 0 0 - - - - 0
5 Reedley 35 18 6 17 301 53 9 229 242 .95 1000
6 Sequoias 37 17 11 20 475 86 10 271 261 1.04 1238
7 Taft 36 14 9 27 434 75 4 220 287 .77 1178
Rk
1 Coalinga 32 187.0 297 218 182 98 138 5.17 8 6.81 2.11
2 Fresno City 37 235.2 216 95 80 76 192 5.70 10 2.38 1.24
3 Merced 32 184.2 353 280 245 81 40 1.52 18 9.29 2.35
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 37 252.0 207 93 67 57 214 5.94 5 1.86 1.05
7 Taft 36 245.0 320 198 130 97 140 4.00 15 3.71 1.70
Rk
1 Coalinga 32 796 560 180 56 .930 4 60 5 .077 18 0
2 Fresno City 37 903 706 169 28 .969 6 17 7 .292 3 0
2 Merced 32 838 554 201 83 .901 1 52 4 .071 31 0
2 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 35 990 661 273 56 .943 4 56 6 .097 7 0
6 Sequoias 37 1008 751 216 41 .959 2 68 6 .081 23 0
6 Taft 36 1083 696 316 71 .934 6 44 12 .214 11 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 17.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 17.0 0 0
2 Merced 18.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 17.0 600 36
6 Sequoias 20.0 1,200 60
7 Taft 14.0 0 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 12 290 39 80 22 0 4 38 26 45 19 5 .276 .340 .393
2 Fresno City 15 382 99 132 27 4 11 82 56 32 39 4 .346 .431 .524
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 15 453 97 161 28 2 5 90 44 34 16 0 .355 .417 .459
7 Taft 13 369 63 108 8 4 5 59 31 52 13 2 .293 .347 .377
Rk
1 Coalinga 12 4 4 1 114 26 2 27 45 .60 325
2 Fresno City 15 7 7 11 200 42 1 64 136 .47 463
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 15 6 3 9 208 35 1 97 118 .82 515
7 Taft 13 3 6 10 139 17 1 85 117 .73 419
Rk
1 Coalinga 12 68.1 121 95 74 39 46 4.71 4 7.58 2.34
2 Fresno City 15 94.1 80 37 28 40 81 6.01 2 2.08 1.27
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 15 101.0 86 32 25 28 80 5.54 2 1.73 1.13
7 Taft 13 89.2 107 72 48 40 37 2.89 8 3.75 1.64
Rk
1 Coalinga 12 294 201 64 29 .901 - 25 2 .074 5 0
2 Fresno City 15 362 283 67 12 .967 3 2 3 .600 2 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 15 385 298 74 13 .966 - 25 3 .107 5 0
6 Taft 13 418 269 122 27 .935 3 12 1 .077 6 0
Rk
1 Coalinga 7.0 0 0
2 Fresno City 7.0 0 0
2 Merced 5.0 0 0
2 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 7.0 100 15
6 Sequoias 7.0 350 50
7 Taft 7.0 0 0