Rk
1 Coalinga - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 21 594 156 217 38 7 14 130 57 54 38 9 .365 .422 .524
3 Merced 12 234 27 40 9 1 2 20 27 59 5 2 .171 .271 .244
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 12 279 39 61 9 0 3 29 24 71 10 0 .219 .289 .283
6 Sequoias 17 493 135 177 38 12 5 113 28 61 24 4 .359 .396 .515
7 Taft 8 190 34 47 10 0 1 26 18 46 4 0 .247 .325 .316
Rk
1 Coalinga - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 21 594 156 217 38 7 14 130 57 54 38 9 .365 .422 .524
3 Merced 12 234 27 40 9 1 2 20 27 59 5 2 .171 .271 .244
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 12 279 39 61 9 0 3 29 24 71 10 0 .219 .289 .283
6 Sequoias 17 493 135 177 38 12 5 113 28 61 24 4 .359 .396 .515
7 Taft 8 190 34 47 10 0 1 26 18 46 4 0 .247 .325 .316
Rk
1 Coalinga - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
2 Fresno City 21 133.2 140 95 59 42 136 7.12 9 3.09 1.36
3 Merced 12 62.1 151 147 117 51 13 1.46 0 13.14 3.24
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 12 53.2 138 105 86 19 15 1.96 8 11.22 2.93
6 Sequoias 17 102.0 92 42 31 22 89 6.11 6 2.13 1.12
7 Taft 8 41.1 74 75 49 40 24 4.06 4 8.30 2.76
Rk
1 Coalinga - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 21 578 387 159 32 .945 4 31 2 .061 13 0
3 Merced 12 322 187 91 44 .863 2 16 4 .200 21 1
4 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 12 240 172 46 22 .908 1 20 3 .130 11 0
6 Sequoias 17 393 305 62 26 .934 4 13 4 .235 4 2
7 Taft 8 204 124 60 20 .902 1 13 2 .133 12 0
Rk
1 Coalinga - - -
2 Fresno City 10.0 - -
2 Merced 8.0 0 0
4 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 4.0 169 43
6 Sequoias 6.0 0 0
7 Taft 2.0 - -
Rk
1 Coalinga - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 13 365 118 150 25 7 9 101 46 19 27 7 .411 .477 .592
3 Merced 9 190 27 38 7 1 2 20 24 43 5 2 .200 .303 .279
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 8 161 19 32 5 0 2 15 17 50 7 0 .199 .283 .267
6 Sequoias 14 386 116 143 32 11 4 99 24 47 18 4 .370 .409 .541
7 Taft 6 141 27 35 5 0 0 22 14 33 1 0 .248 .333 .284
Rk
1 Coalinga - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 13 365 118 150 25 7 9 101 46 19 27 7 .411 .477 .592
3 Merced 9 190 27 38 7 1 2 20 24 43 5 2 .200 .303 .279
4 Porterville - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 8 161 19 32 5 0 2 15 17 50 7 0 .199 .283 .267
6 Sequoias 14 386 116 143 32 11 4 99 24 47 18 4 .370 .409 .541
7 Taft 6 141 27 35 5 0 0 22 14 33 1 0 .248 .333 .284
Rk
1 Coalinga - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
2 Fresno City 13 81.0 61 37 17 21 95 8.21 1 1.47 1.01
3 Merced 9 47.1 106 97 76 40 11 1.63 0 11.24 3.08
4 Porterville - 0.0 - - - - - .00 - 0.00 0.00
5 Reedley 8 40.2 113 92 74 15 6 1.03 8 12.74 3.15
6 Sequoias 14 81.0 67 28 21 19 65 5.62 5 1.81 1.06
7 Taft 6 31.0 51 53 32 30 15 3.39 3 7.23 2.61
Rk
1 Coalinga - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
2 Fresno City 13 341 243 82 16 .953 4 12 0 .000 9 0
3 Merced 9 245 142 72 31 .873 2 11 4 .267 19 1
4 Porterville - 0 - - - - - - - - - -
5 Reedley 8 180 121 40 19 .894 1 14 3 .176 9 0
6 Sequoias 14 315 242 55 18 .943 3 9 4 .308 2 2
7 Taft 6 158 93 48 17 .892 1 12 2 .143 9 0
Rk
1 Coalinga - - -
2 Fresno City 8.0 - -
2 Merced 5.0 0 0
4 Porterville - - -
5 Reedley 4.0 169 43
6 Sequoias 6.0 0 0
7 Taft 2.0 - -