You know, as soon as (let's call him) Suburban Hank made an appearance later in 2014, I thought right away, "whoa, grooming!" I haven't shared a home with a dog since high school, but I'm open to the idea that professional grooming can make that much of a difference. Hank's diet no doubt improved substantially once he joined the Wronski family. Even if the Brewers aren't paying for any of Hank's upkeep, his family can likely afford to treat him well. So I lean toward Street Hank and Suburban Hank being the same dog. Having said that, a few things have planted a seed of doubt in my mind: - The pair of photos in the BCB column which show Street Hank and Suburban Hank in a dugout next to a red phone. Besides looking whiter and fluffier, Suburban Hank looks like he has a bigger frame. You don't get bigger bones through grooming and diet. I realize it could be just the angle of the photos, but that pair of photos gave me the most pause. (Not paws.) - Let's say Street Hank DID meet an untimely end sometime in 2014. If you were the Brewers, would you announce it right then? I mean that seriously. The on-field performance was already a slow-motion train wreck by then, leaving Hank as one of the bright spots. At that point, bad news about Hank would not only have been a distressingly apt metaphor for the 2014 Brewers' overall fortunes - it would have driven away the Hankhead portion of the fan base. They're kind of weird (I don't mean people who like dogs are weird, but people who suddenly decided to come to games solely because the Brewers had a dog? Kind of weird)...but their money counts just as much. If Suburban Hank really is a separate dog from Street Hank, I can understand why the Brewers didn't want to bring that particular revenue stream to a screeching (and frankly depressing) halt. I have to admit, just from a PR standpoint, I'll be interested to see what on earth they have to say on Friday, even if there are way too many "pup culture" references.