The Automated ScoreBook
Team Statistics
Overall Statistics
The Automated ScoreBook
Overall Statistics (as of Aug 06, 2017)
(All games Sorted by Batting avg)
Team AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB SLG% BB HBP SO GDP OB% SF SH SB-ATT PO A E FLD%
Henderson, NV....... .395 5 195 66 77 13 2 5 52 109 .559 31 9 21 5 .492 3 7 3-3 135 48 4 .979
League City, TX..... .382 4 131 44 50 16 1 6 42 86 .656 17 5 25 5 .465 2 1 7-8 90 32 10 .924
Chico, CA........... .370 4 165 47 61 15 1 1 39 81 .491 21 6 28 3 .449 4 4 5-5 114 48 10 .942
Grand Junction, CO.. .323 2 65 11 21 5 0 1 10 29 .446 7 0 11 2 .389 0 0 3-3 39 9 8 .857
Albuquerque, NM..... .317 3 101 25 32 6 2 2 25 48 .475 16 4 16 1 .426 1 2 2-2 75 25 7 .935
St. George, UT...... .306 5 206 40 63 9 2 4 37 88 .427 25 2 40 1 .385 1 1 13-18 148 74 9 .961
Tucson, AZ.......... .303 3 109 22 33 8 2 3 20 54 .495 13 1 13 2 .379 1 3 2-3 75 35 4 .965
Eaglecrest, CO...... .250 2 60 8 15 3 1 1 7 23 .383 5 2 17 2 .328 0 0 0-1 46 20 1 .985
Totals.............. .341 1032 352 11 232 .502 29 21 12 35-43 291 .950
28 263 75 23 518 135 171 .427 18 722 53
(All games Sorted by Earned run avg)
Team ERA W-L G CG SHO/CBO SV IP H R ER BB SO 2B 3B HR AB B/Avg WP HBP BK SFA SHA
Henderson, NV....... 2.60 5-0 5 0 0/0 0 45.0 41 19 13 14 45 6 0 3 169 .243 4 3 0 0 1
St. George, UT...... 5.84 3-2 5 0 0/0 1 49.1 62 42 32 35 17 12 1 2 189 .328 9 7 0 4 10
Albuquerque, NM..... 6.48 1-2 3 1 0/0 0 25.0 37 27 18 14 24 6 2 1 111 .333 7 3 1 2 2
Chico, CA........... 6.87 2-2 4 0 0/0 0 38.0 48 36 29 20 27 5 2 4 157 .306 6 3 0 1 1
Tucson, AZ.......... 7.92 1-2 3 0 0/0 0 25.0 35 23 22 11 22 11 2 1 102 .343 0 3 0 0 1
League City, TX..... 9.60 2-2 4 0 0/0 1 30.0 54 39 32 17 21 15 0 5 146 .370 5 0 1 1 2
Eaglecrest, CO...... 11.74 0-2 2 0 0/0 0 15.1 27 22 20 13 6 8 3 2 70 .386 3 2 0 1 1
Grand Junction, CO.. 30.46 0-2 2 0 0/0 0 13.0 48 55 44 11 9 12 1 5 88 .545 7 8 0 3 0
Totals.............. 7.85 28 0/0 240.2 263 135 75 23 .341 29 12
14-14 1 2 352 210 171 11 1032 41 2 18
PB - TX 3, NM 2. Pickoffs - NV 3, CO-B 2, UT 2, AZ 1, NM 1.
(All games Sorted by Fielding pct)
Team C PO A E FLD% DPs SBA CSB SBA% PB CI
Eaglecrest, CO...... 67 46 20 1 .985 0 1 0 1.000 0 0
Henderson, NV....... 187 135 48 4 .979 2 3 2 .600 0 0
Tucson, AZ.......... 114 75 35 4 .965 4 7 1 .875 0 0
St. George, UT...... 231 148 74 9 .961 8 3 1 .750 0 0
Chico, CA........... 172 114 48 10 .942 5 6 3 .667 0 0
Albuquerque, NM..... 107 75 25 7 .935 0 4 1 .800 2 0
League City, TX..... 132 90 32 10 .924 3 8 0 1.000 3 0
Grand Junction, CO.. 56 39 9 8 .857 2 3 0 1.000 0 0
Totals.............. 1066 291 .950 35 .814 0
722 53 24 8 5
Category Leaders
The Automated ScoreBook
Batting Leaders (as of Aug 06, 2017)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games 2.0 AB/Game
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 1.0 IP/Game
Batting avg
-----------
1. Henderson, NV....... .395
2. League City, TX..... .382
3. Chico, CA........... .370
4. Grand Junction, CO.. .323
5. Albuquerque, NM..... .317
Slugging pct
------------
1. League City, TX..... .656
2. Henderson, NV....... .559
3. Tucson, AZ.......... .495
4. Chico, CA........... .491
5. Albuquerque, NM..... .475
On base pct
-----------
1. Henderson, NV....... .492
2. League City, TX..... .465
3. Chico, CA........... .449
4. Albuquerque, NM..... .426
5. Grand Junction, CO.. .389
Runs scored
-----------
1. Henderson, NV....... 66
2. Chico, CA........... 47
3. League City, TX..... 44
4. St. George, UT...... 40
5. Albuquerque, NM..... 25
Hits
----
1. Henderson, NV....... 77
2. St. George, UT...... 63
3. Chico, CA........... 61
4. League City, TX..... 50
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 33
Runs batted in
--------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 52
2. League City, TX..... 42
3. Chico, CA........... 39
4. St. George, UT...... 37
5. Albuquerque, NM..... 25
Doubles
-------
1. League City, TX..... 16
2. Chico, CA........... 15
3. Henderson, NV....... 13
4. St. George, UT...... 9
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 8
Triples
-------
1. Henderson, NV....... 2
Albuquerque, NM..... 2
Tucson, AZ.......... 2
St. George, UT...... 2
5. 3 tied at........... 1
Home runs
---------
1. League City, TX..... 6
2. Henderson, NV....... 5
3. St. George, UT...... 4
4. Tucson, AZ.......... 3
5. Albuquerque, NM..... 2
Total bases
-----------
1. Henderson, NV....... 109
2. St. George, UT...... 88
3. League City, TX..... 86
4. Chico, CA........... 81
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 54
Total plate appearances
-----------------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 245
2. St. George, UT...... 235
3. Chico, CA........... 200
4. League City, TX..... 156
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 127
At bats
-------
1. St. George, UT...... 206
2. Henderson, NV....... 195
3. Chico, CA........... 165
4. League City, TX..... 131
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 109
Walks
-----
1. Henderson, NV....... 31
2. St. George, UT...... 25
3. Chico, CA........... 21
4. League City, TX..... 17
5. Albuquerque, NM..... 16
Hit by pitch
------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 9
2. Chico, CA........... 6
3. League City, TX..... 5
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 4
5. 2 tied at........... 2
Strikeouts
----------
1. St. George, UT...... 40
2. Chico, CA........... 28
3. League City, TX..... 25
4. Henderson, NV....... 21
5. Eaglecrest, CO...... 17
Sac bunts
---------
1. Henderson, NV....... 7
2. Chico, CA........... 4
3. Tucson, AZ.......... 3
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 2
5. 2 tied at........... 1
Sac flies
---------
1. Chico, CA........... 4
2. Henderson, NV....... 3
3. League City, TX..... 2
4. 3 tied at........... 1
Stolen bases
------------
1. St. George, UT...... 13
2. League City, TX..... 7
3. Chico, CA........... 5
4. Henderson, NV....... 3
Grand Junction, CO.. 3
Caught stealing
---------------
1. St. George, UT...... 5
2. League City, TX..... 1
Tucson, AZ.......... 1
Eaglecrest, CO...... 1
Steal attempts
--------------
1. St. George, UT...... 18
2. League City, TX..... 8
3. Chico, CA........... 5
4. 3 tied at........... 3
Grounded into DP
----------------
1. League City, TX..... 5
Henderson, NV....... 5
3. Chico, CA........... 3
4. 3 tied at........... 2
The Automated ScoreBook
Pitching Leaders (as of Aug 06, 2017)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games 2.0 AB/Game
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 1.0 IP/Game
Earned run avg
--------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 2.60
2. St. George, UT...... 5.84
3. Albuquerque, NM..... 6.48
4. Chico, CA........... 6.87
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 7.92
Opposing bat avg
----------------
1. Henderson, NV....... .243
2. Chico, CA........... .306
3. St. George, UT...... .328
4. Albuquerque, NM..... .333
5. Tucson, AZ.......... .343
Innings pitched
---------------
1. St. George, UT...... 49.1
2. Henderson, NV....... 45.0
3. Chico, CA........... 38.0
4. League City, TX..... 30.0
5. 2 tied at........... 25.0
Batters struck out
------------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 45
2. Chico, CA........... 27
3. Albuquerque, NM..... 24
4. Tucson, AZ.......... 22
5. League City, TX..... 21
Batters SO out looking
----------------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 16
2. League City, TX..... 10
3. Chico, CA........... 7
4. 3 tied at........... 6
Wins
----
1. Henderson, NV....... 5
2. St. George, UT...... 3
3. League City, TX..... 2
Chico, CA........... 2
5. 2 tied at........... 1
Losses
------
1. 7 tied at........... 2
Saves
-----
1. St. George, UT...... 1
League City, TX..... 1
Runners picked off
------------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 3
2. Eaglecrest, CO...... 2
St. George, UT...... 2
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 1
Tucson, AZ.......... 1
Sac bunts allowed
-----------------
1. St. George, UT...... 10
2. Albuquerque, NM..... 2
League City, TX..... 2
4. 4 tied at........... 1
Sac flies allowed
-----------------
1. St. George, UT...... 4
2. Grand Junction, CO.. 3
3. Albuquerque, NM..... 2
4. 3 tied at........... 1
Hits allowed
------------
1. Eaglecrest, CO...... 27
2. Tucson, AZ.......... 35
3. Albuquerque, NM..... 37
4. Henderson, NV....... 41
5. 2 tied at........... 48
Runs allowed
------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 19
2. Eaglecrest, CO...... 22
3. Tucson, AZ.......... 23
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 27
5. Chico, CA........... 36
Earned runs allowed
-------------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 13
2. Albuquerque, NM..... 18
3. Eaglecrest, CO...... 20
4. Tucson, AZ.......... 22
5. Chico, CA........... 29
Walks allowed
-------------
1. Tucson, AZ.......... 11
Grand Junction, CO.. 11
3. Eaglecrest, CO...... 13
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 14
Henderson, NV....... 14
Doubles allowed
---------------
1. Chico, CA........... 5
2. Albuquerque, NM..... 6
Henderson, NV....... 6
4. Eaglecrest, CO...... 8
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 11
Triples allowed
---------------
1. Henderson, NV....... 0
League City, TX..... 0
3. Grand Junction, CO.. 1
St. George, UT...... 1
5. 3 tied at........... 2
Home runs allowed
-----------------
1. Albuquerque, NM..... 1
Tucson, AZ.......... 1
3. St. George, UT...... 2
Eaglecrest, CO...... 2
5. Henderson, NV....... 3
Wild pitches
------------
1. St. George, UT...... 9
2. Grand Junction, CO.. 7
Albuquerque, NM..... 7
4. Chico, CA........... 6
5. League City, TX..... 5
Balks
-----
1. Albuquerque, NM..... 1
League City, TX..... 1
Hit batters
-----------
1. Grand Junction, CO.. 8
2. St. George, UT...... 7
3. 4 tied at........... 3
Intentional BB allowed
----------------------
1. Albuquerque, NM..... 1
St. George, UT...... 1
The Automated ScoreBook
Fielding Leaders (as of Aug 06, 2017)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 1.0 IP/Game
Fielding pct
------------
1. Eaglecrest, CO...... .985
2. Henderson, NV....... .979
3. Tucson, AZ.......... .965
4. St. George, UT...... .961
5. Chico, CA........... .942
Chances
-------
1. St. George, UT...... 231
2. Henderson, NV....... 187
3. Chico, CA........... 172
4. League City, TX..... 132
5. Tucson, AZ.......... 114
Putouts
-------
1. St. George, UT...... 148
2. Henderson, NV....... 135
3. Chico, CA........... 114
4. League City, TX..... 90
5. 2 tied at........... 75
Assists
-------
1. St. George, UT...... 74
2. Henderson, NV....... 48
Chico, CA........... 48
4. Tucson, AZ.......... 35
5. League City, TX..... 32
Errors
------
1. Chico, CA........... 10
League City, TX..... 10
3. St. George, UT...... 9
4. Grand Junction, CO.. 8
5. Albuquerque, NM..... 7
Fielding double plays
---------------------
1. St. George, UT...... 8
2. Chico, CA........... 5
3. Tucson, AZ.......... 4
4. League City, TX..... 3
5. 2 tied at........... 2
Stolen bases against
--------------------
1. League City, TX..... 8
2. Tucson, AZ.......... 7
3. Chico, CA........... 6
4. Albuquerque, NM..... 4
5. 3 tied at........... 3
Caught stealing by
------------------
1. Chico, CA........... 3
2. Henderson, NV....... 2
3. Albuquerque, NM..... 1
St. George, UT...... 1
Tucson, AZ.......... 1
Steal attempts against
----------------------
1. Chico, CA........... 9
2. League City, TX..... 8
Tucson, AZ.......... 8
4. Henderson, NV....... 5
Albuquerque, NM..... 5
Passed balls
------------
1. League City, TX..... 3
2. Albuquerque, NM..... 2
Catchers interference
---------------------