2011 Fantasy Baseball Profile: Can Dexter Fowler Build Upon His Summer Success?
Dexter Fowler had a decent April that saw him hit .256, with 12 runs and four stolen bases in 82 at-bats. He hit the skids in May, batting .158, with six runs and two stolen bases in 57 at-bats. After going hitless in eight June at-bats, he was optioned to Triple-A Colorado Springs.
It was there that he regained his confidence…and his stroke. He hit .340 in 27 games for the Sky Sox, scoring 23 runs in 27 games. When he returned to the Rockies, he brought his minor league success with him.
Fowler hit .287 (25-for-87) in July for the Rockies with 21 runs. He went on to hit .275 in both June (25-for-91) and July (28-for-102) and .500 (6-for-12) in October. That’s an average of .288 (84-for-292), with 54 runs from July through October.
While his overall HR (six) and RBI (36) numbers are far from impressive, he had five HRs and 32 RBI in those summer months. While I don’t expect him to turn into power hitter, he could hit around eight-10 next year if he can maintain that swing.
That’s not why you’re drafting him though. You’re looking for runs and stolen bases. He has scored 73 runs in each of the past two seasons in just 433 and 439 at-bats respectively.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment was his regression from 27 to 13 stolen bases. If you take a chance on him, it won’t come at a high price. His average draft position, according to Mock Draft Central, is 236. That’s at the back end of the 20th round in 12-team leagues. It’s the perfect spot to take a player with 90 run and 30 stolen base potential.
Also check out:
- 2011 Fantasy Baseball Profiles
- 2011 Fantasy First Basemen Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Second Basemen Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Third Basemen Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Shortstop Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Catcher Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Outfielder Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Starting Pitcher Rankings
- 2011 Fantasy Closer Rankings
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?