2003 Southern Conference Softball
Team Statistics
Overall Statistics
2003 Southern Conference Softball
SoCon Overall Statistics (Final)
(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%
Coll. of Charleston. .303 56 1445 311 438 81 12 20 264 603 .417 161 42 228 8 .385 17 39 65-71 1098 524 54 .968
UNC Greensboro...... .277 56 1459 262 404 70 14 57 222 673 .461 146 13 265 3 .346 10 19 71-89 1094 547 64 .962
Chattanooga......... .263 67 1750 260 461 90 12 43 236 704 .402 187 12 268 6 .337 12 90 40-53 1370 503 51 .973
Furman.............. .259 53 1374 185 356 62 9 9 154 463 .337 99 19 185 8 .315 12 43 34-45 1053 545 64 .961
UNC Wilmington...... .259 60 1566 191 405 48 5 21 165 526 .336 124 22 271 6 .321 7 58 66-76 1190 625 101 .947
East Tennessee State .248 54 1445 195 359 72 11 23 168 522 .361 117 12 249 7 .309 5 26 52-65 1103 564 79 .955
Georgia Southern.... .233 56 1399 157 326 43 15 13 129 438 .313 135 21 257 3 .308 10 24 45-66 1092 528 84 .951
Appalachian State... .211 51 1286 118 271 42 3 1 92 322 .250 93 6 278 4 .267 3 26 87-104 992 400 98 .934
Totals.............. .258 11724 3020 81 1430 .363 147 45 76 460-569 4236 .957
453 1679 508 187 4251 1062 2001 .325 325 8992 595
CI - UNCW 2, Furman 1.
(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
Coll. of Charleston. 1.43 45-11 56 43 16/1 2 366.0 294 116 75 76 189 38 8 13 1354 .217 26 11 0 4 41
Chattanooga......... 2.04 36-30 67 46 15/2 1 456.2 418 170 133 138 358 61 8 21 1727 .242 10 13 0 8 59
UNC Greensboro...... 2.30 38-18 56 32 13/1 1 364.2 331 155 120 113 286 45 3 31 1383 .239 17 11 0 6 42
Georgia Southern.... 2.51 28-28 56 35 8/0 1 364.2 326 193 131 157 260 61 11 17 1400 .233 14 39 0 4 36
East Tennessee State 3.08 28-26 54 31 9/3 5 367.2 393 216 162 155 153 81 10 18 1461 .269 30 25 0 10 37
Furman.............. 3.15 21-32 53 18 8/5 3 351.0 383 217 158 158 182 54 4 19 1375 .279 35 22 0 5 52
UNC Wilmington...... 3.34 22-38 60 33 7/0 1 396.2 406 263 189 157 171 67 10 35 1573 .258 19 7 1 5 42
Appalachian State... 3.45 16-34 51 22 5/1 3 330.2 420 251 163 111 145 64 3 37 1398 .300 10 10 0 8 34
Totals.............. 2.64 453 81/13 2998.0 1581 1065 471 191 .255 138 50
234-217 260 17 2971 1131 1744 57 11671 161 1 343
PB - UNCW 21, ASU 19, ETSU 17, UTC 14, GSU 12, Furman 12, COFC 11, UNCG 7. Pickoffs - UNCG 4, ETSU 3, Furman 2, UNCW 2, GSU
1, ASU 1, COFC 1.
(All games Sorted by Fielding pct)
Team C PO A E FLD% DPs SBA CSB SBA% PB CI
Chattanooga......... 1924 1370 503 51 .973 12 57 25 .695 14 0
Coll. of Charleston. 1676 1098 524 54 .968 19 38 11 .776 11 0
UNC Greensboro...... 1705 1094 547 64 .962 16 35 15 .700 7 0
Furman.............. 1662 1053 545 64 .961 10 43 27 .614 12 1
East Tennessee State 1746 1103 564 79 .955 28 45 15 .750 17 0
Georgia Southern.... 1704 1092 528 84 .951 9 72 12 .857 12 0
UNC Wilmington...... 1916 1190 625 101 .947 13 62 17 .785 21 2
Appalachian State... 1490 992 400 98 .934 11 70 12 .854 19 0
Totals.............. 13823 4236 .957 422 .759 3
8992 595 118 134 113
Category Leaders
2003 Southern Conference Softball
SoCon Batting Leaders (Final)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games 75% of Games 2 AB 2.5 AB/Game 2 TPA 2.5 TPA/Game
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 7 IP 1 BF 1.0 IP/Game
Batting avg
-----------
1. Coll. of Charleston. .303
2. UNC Greensboro...... .277
3. Chattanooga......... .263
4. Furman.............. .259
5. UNC Wilmington...... .259
Slugging pct
------------
1. UNC Greensboro...... .461
2. Coll. of Charleston. .417
3. Chattanooga......... .402
4. East Tennessee State .361
5. Furman.............. .337
On base pct
-----------
1. Coll. of Charleston. .385
2. UNC Greensboro...... .346
3. Chattanooga......... .337
4. UNC Wilmington...... .321
5. Furman.............. .315
Runs scored
-----------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 311
2. UNC Greensboro...... 262
3. Chattanooga......... 260
4. East Tennessee State 195
5. UNC Wilmington...... 191
Hits
----
1. Chattanooga......... 461
2. Coll. of Charleston. 438
3. UNC Wilmington...... 405
4. UNC Greensboro...... 404
5. East Tennessee State 359
Runs batted in
--------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 264
2. Chattanooga......... 236
3. UNC Greensboro...... 222
4. East Tennessee State 168
5. UNC Wilmington...... 165
Doubles
-------
1. Chattanooga......... 90
2. Coll. of Charleston. 81
3. East Tennessee State 72
4. UNC Greensboro...... 70
5. Furman.............. 62
Triples
-------
1. Georgia Southern.... 15
2. UNC Greensboro...... 14
3. Coll. of Charleston. 12
Chattanooga......... 12
5. East Tennessee State 11
Home runs
---------
1. UNC Greensboro...... 57
2. Chattanooga......... 43
3. East Tennessee State 23
4. UNC Wilmington...... 21
5. Coll. of Charleston. 20
Total bases
-----------
1. Chattanooga......... 704
2. UNC Greensboro...... 673
3. Coll. of Charleston. 603
4. UNC Wilmington...... 526
5. East Tennessee State 522
Total plate appearances
-----------------------
1. Chattanooga......... 2051
2. UNC Wilmington...... 1777
3. Coll. of Charleston. 1704
4. UNC Greensboro...... 1649
5. East Tennessee State 1605
At bats
-------
1. Chattanooga......... 1750
2. UNC Wilmington...... 1566
3. UNC Greensboro...... 1459
4. Coll. of Charleston. 1445
East Tennessee State 1445
Walks
-----
1. Chattanooga......... 187
2. Coll. of Charleston. 161
3. UNC Greensboro...... 146
4. Georgia Southern.... 135
5. UNC Wilmington...... 124
Hit by pitch
------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 42
2. UNC Wilmington...... 22
3. Georgia Southern.... 21
4. Furman.............. 19
5. UNC Greensboro...... 13
Strikeouts
----------
1. Appalachian State... 278
2. UNC Wilmington...... 271
3. Chattanooga......... 268
4. UNC Greensboro...... 265
5. Georgia Southern.... 257
Sac bunts
---------
1. Chattanooga......... 90
2. UNC Wilmington...... 58
3. Furman.............. 43
4. Coll. of Charleston. 39
5. 2 tied at........... 26
Sac flies
---------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 17
2. Chattanooga......... 12
Furman.............. 12
4. Georgia Southern.... 10
UNC Greensboro...... 10
Stolen bases
------------
1. Appalachian State... 87
2. UNC Greensboro...... 71
3. UNC Wilmington...... 66
4. Coll. of Charleston. 65
5. East Tennessee State 52
Caught stealing
---------------
1. Georgia Southern.... 21
2. UNC Greensboro...... 18
3. Appalachian State... 17
4. Chattanooga......... 13
East Tennessee State 13
Steal attempts
--------------
1. Appalachian State... 104
2. UNC Greensboro...... 89
3. UNC Wilmington...... 76
4. Coll. of Charleston. 71
5. Georgia Southern.... 66
Grounded into DP
----------------
1. Furman.............. 8
Coll. of Charleston. 8
3. East Tennessee State 7
4. Chattanooga......... 6
UNC Wilmington...... 6
2003 Southern Conference Softball
SoCon Pitching Leaders (Final)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games 75% of Games 2 AB 2.5 AB/Game 2 TPA 2.5 TPA/Game
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 7 IP 1 BF 1.0 IP/Game
Earned run avg
--------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 1.43
2. Chattanooga......... 2.04
3. UNC Greensboro...... 2.30
4. Georgia Southern.... 2.51
5. East Tennessee State 3.08
Opposing bat avg
----------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. .217
2. Georgia Southern.... .233
3. UNC Greensboro...... .239
4. Chattanooga......... .242
5. UNC Wilmington...... .258
Innings pitched
---------------
1. Chattanooga......... 456.2
2. UNC Wilmington...... 396.2
3. East Tennessee State 367.2
4. Coll. of Charleston. 366.0
5. 2 tied at........... 364.2
Batters struck out
------------------
1. Chattanooga......... 358
2. UNC Greensboro...... 286
3. Georgia Southern.... 260
4. Coll. of Charleston. 189
5. Furman.............. 182
Batters SO out looking
----------------------
1. Chattanooga......... 107
2. Georgia Southern.... 98
3. UNC Greensboro...... 96
4. Furman.............. 61
5. East Tennessee State 49
Wins
----
1. Coll. of Charleston. 45
2. UNC Greensboro...... 38
3. Chattanooga......... 36
4. East Tennessee State 28
Georgia Southern.... 28
Losses
------
1. UNC Wilmington...... 38
2. Appalachian State... 34
3. Furman.............. 32
4. Chattanooga......... 30
5. Georgia Southern.... 28
Saves
-----
1. East Tennessee State 5
2. Furman.............. 3
Appalachian State... 3
4. Coll. of Charleston. 2
5. 4 tied at........... 1
Runners picked off
------------------
1. UNC Greensboro...... 4
2. East Tennessee State 3
3. Furman.............. 2
UNC Wilmington...... 2
5. 3 tied at........... 1
Sac bunts allowed
-----------------
1. Chattanooga......... 59
2. Furman.............. 52
3. UNC Wilmington...... 42
UNC Greensboro...... 42
5. Coll. of Charleston. 41
Sac flies allowed
-----------------
1. East Tennessee State 10
2. Appalachian State... 8
Chattanooga......... 8
4. UNC Greensboro...... 6
5. 2 tied at........... 5
Hits allowed
------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 294
2. Georgia Southern.... 326
3. UNC Greensboro...... 331
4. Furman.............. 383
5. East Tennessee State 393
Runs allowed
------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 116
2. UNC Greensboro...... 155
3. Chattanooga......... 170
4. Georgia Southern.... 193
5. East Tennessee State 216
Earned runs allowed
-------------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 75
2. UNC Greensboro...... 120
3. Georgia Southern.... 131
4. Chattanooga......... 133
5. Furman.............. 158
Walks allowed
-------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 76
2. Appalachian State... 111
3. UNC Greensboro...... 113
4. Chattanooga......... 138
5. East Tennessee State 155
Doubles allowed
---------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 38
2. UNC Greensboro...... 45
3. Furman.............. 54
4. Chattanooga......... 61
Georgia Southern.... 61
Triples allowed
---------------
1. UNC Greensboro...... 3
Appalachian State... 3
3. Furman.............. 4
4. Chattanooga......... 8
Coll. of Charleston. 8
Home runs allowed
-----------------
1. Coll. of Charleston. 13
2. Georgia Southern.... 17
3. East Tennessee State 18
4. Furman.............. 19
5. Chattanooga......... 21
Wild pitches
------------
1. Furman.............. 35
2. East Tennessee State 30
3. Coll. of Charleston. 26
4. UNC Wilmington...... 19
5. UNC Greensboro...... 17
Balks
-----
1. UNC Wilmington...... 1
Hit batters
-----------
1. Georgia Southern.... 39
2. East Tennessee State 25
3. Furman.............. 22
4. Chattanooga......... 13
5. 2 tied at........... 11
Intentional BB allowed
----------------------
1. Appalachian State... 7
2. Chattanooga......... 6
3. Furman.............. 5
4. UNC Wilmington...... 3
5. 2 tied at........... 1
2003 Southern Conference Softball
SoCon Fielding Leaders (Final)
(All games)
Hitting minimums - 1 Games 75% of Games
Pitching minimums - 1 Games 7 IP 1 BF 1.0 IP/Game
Fielding pct
------------
1. Chattanooga......... .973
2. Coll. of Charleston. .968
3. UNC Greensboro...... .962
4. Furman.............. .961
5. East Tennessee State .955
Chances
-------
1. Chattanooga......... 1924
2. UNC Wilmington...... 1916
3. East Tennessee State 1746
4. UNC Greensboro...... 1705
5. Georgia Southern.... 1704
Putouts
-------
1. Chattanooga......... 1370
2. UNC Wilmington...... 1190
3. East Tennessee State 1103
4. Coll. of Charleston. 1098
5. UNC Greensboro...... 1094
Assists
-------
1. UNC Wilmington...... 625
2. East Tennessee State 564
3. UNC Greensboro...... 547
4. Furman.............. 545
5. Georgia Southern.... 528
Errors
------
1. UNC Wilmington...... 101
2. Appalachian State... 98
3. Georgia Southern.... 84
4. East Tennessee State 79
5. 2 tied at........... 64
Fielding double plays
---------------------
1. East Tennessee State 28
2. Coll. of Charleston. 19
3. UNC Greensboro...... 16
4. UNC Wilmington...... 13
5. Chattanooga......... 12
Stolen bases against
--------------------
1. Georgia Southern.... 72
2. Appalachian State... 70
3. UNC Wilmington...... 62
4. Chattanooga......... 57
5. East Tennessee State 45
Caught stealing by
------------------
1. Furman.............. 27
2. Chattanooga......... 25
3. UNC Wilmington...... 17
4. East Tennessee State 15
UNC Greensboro...... 15
Steal attempts against
----------------------
1. Georgia Southern.... 84
2. Chattanooga......... 82
Appalachian State... 82
4. UNC Wilmington...... 79
5. Furman.............. 70
Passed balls
------------
1. UNC Wilmington...... 21
2. Appalachian State... 19
3. East Tennessee State 17
4. Chattanooga......... 14
5. 2 tied at........... 12
Catchers interference
---------------------
1. UNC Wilmington...... 2
2. Furman.............. 1