Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Former Reds trainer Larry Starr was featured on ESPN's Outside the Lines today (and in an ESPN.com story yesterday) about the "enablers" in MLB who looked the other way when it came to steroids. The piece talked about trainers and especially managers like Tony LaRussa (I've been banging that drum for years -- wouldn't be surprised if LaRussa has an HGH lab in his basement).
Anyway, Starr wouldn't name the player, but said his first encounter with steroids was with a "light-hitting Reds prospect in spring training in 1984 who added 25 pounds of all muscle in the offseason and was suddenly hitting the ball much better." The reporter called him a "AA prospect who hit .400 that spring including a few home runs."
I thought long and hard about it, but couldn't come up with the name. Maybe Nick Esasky? Doubtful. Esasky was pretty naturally big. Maybe Tracy Jones???
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column..._tj&id=3270983
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
The only ones who seem to fit under the "light hitting infielder" mold during that time are Esasky, Ron Oester, Dave Concepcion and Wayne Krenchicki.
Oester and Concepcion didn't really improve on their numbers suddenly during that period.
Esasky saw a lot of improvement - but that could also come from his maturing. I don't really remember his size when he came up - I would have to look at some of my older cards.
Krenchicki saw a pretty large improvement from '83 to '84 - but this was in a utility position and could simply be luck.
Frankly, kind of hard to tell.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrCinatit
The only ones who seem to fit under the "light hitting infielder" mold during that time are Esasky, Ron Oester, Dave Concepcion and Wayne Krenchicki.
Oester and Concepcion didn't really improve on their numbers suddenly during that period.
Esasky saw a lot of improvement - but that could also come from his maturing. I don't really remember his size when he came up - I would have to look at some of my older cards.
Krenchicki saw a pretty large improvement from '83 to '84 - but this was in a utility position and could simply be luck.
Frankly, kind of hard to tell.
I'm sorry, I went back and edited. I went back and listened to the piece (I have it DVR'd) and he only said "light-hitting Reds prospect" not necessarily an infielder. I thought for some reason he said infielder but he clearly says "light-hitting prospect."
Here is what we know: This player was in Double-A in 1983. He gained 25 pounds of muscle in the offseason and hit .400 in spring training 1984 and made the team. Could we be talking about the Tracer here?
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Wade Rowdon, anyone?
As someone pointed out to me in a private message, he made his Reds' debut in 1984.
I don't think it was Eric Davis. First of all, he wouldn't have been considered a "light-hitting prospect." Second of all, since he was skinnier than the Olson twins, I just don't see steroids with him. Starr said this guy went from about 169 pounds to 195 in the offseason. Davis didn't weigh 195 soaking wet in 1984.
But Wade Rowdon, very interesting. I still think Tracy might be a possibility. When did he first come up to the bigs?
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Starr's made a similar comment to this before, engendering much speculation on this board. There are a few specifics now, eliminating some of the previous suspects (such as Kal Daniels).
I normally don't like to speculate on such things, but if it's Tracy Jones, the speculation seems somehow fair.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Tracy Jones "played the game" beginning in 1986.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
BTW, Rowdon was listed at 6-foot-2, 180 pounds his final season in MLB in 1988. He would fall between the 169-195 lbs that Starr talked about.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BCubb2003
Tracy Jones "played the game" beginning in 1986.
The process of elimination is great. Wade Rowdon is your leader in the clubhouse.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BCubb2003
Tracy Jones "played the game" beginning in 1986.
Yeah, he was only in single A in 1984, but if there's some way to make this about him, say by suggesting Starr's memory was off a little, hey, I'm willing to adjust. :p:
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitz Dorsey
I'm sorry, I went back and edited. I went back and listened to the piece (I have it DVR'd) and he only said "light-hitting Reds prospect" not necessarily an infielder. I thought for some reason he said infielder but he clearly says "light-hitting prospect."
Here is what we know: This player was in Double-A in 1983. He gained 25 pounds of muscle in the offseason and hit .400 in spring training 1984 and made the team. Could we be talking about the Tracer here?
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ht=larry+starr
Starr has gotten a lot of mileage out of this story. Back in aught 5 the year in question was 1988. As he gets older the year in question pushes further back. Twenty years from now Starr's story might be that it was a young middle infielder back int 1962 or 1963.
Not saying that he's making it up, just that it sounds like one of those scenarios where a guy is remembering different bits and different pieces and combining them into a grand tale.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
fwiw, it couldn't be Krenchiki. I watched him play in several AAA games for Rochester (at Charleston) in 1979. I have some very specific memories.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
:cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ochre
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ht=larry+starr
Starr has gotten a lot of mileage out of this story. Back in aught 5 the year in question was 1988. As he gets older the year in question pushes further back. Twenty years from now Starr's story might be that it was a young middle infielder back int 1962 or 1963.
Not saying that he's making it up, just that it sounds like one of those scenarios where a guy is remembering different bits and different pieces and combining them into a grand tale.
Okay, that's good enough for me. It's Tracy Jones. :cool:
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ochre
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ht=larry+starr
Starr has gotten a lot of mileage out of this story. Back in aught 5 the year in question was 1988. As he gets older the year in question pushes further back. Twenty years from now Starr's story might be that it was a young middle infielder back int 1962 or 1963.
Not saying that he's making it up, just that it sounds like one of those scenarios where a guy is remembering different bits and different pieces and combining them into a grand tale.
In fairness, there is not a quote from Starr in the 2005 story that says 1988 was the first time he had an encounter with steroids. The writer draws that conclusion, but I wonder if he was taking certain liberties with the story. Starr was quoted on ESPN today saying 1984 was the first time. And he's clearly talking about two different players because he says the player in 1988 (possibly Kal Daniels) was asking him about steroids. The player in 1984 didn't say a word and Starr was just saying that was the first time he suspected someone of juicing.
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BCubb2003
Tracy Jones "played the game" beginning in 1986.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Re: Who is Larry Starr talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitz Dorsey
In fairness, there is not a quote from Starr in the 2005 story that says 1988 was the first time he had an encounter with steroids. The writer draws that conclusion, but I wonder if he was taking certain liberties with the story. Starr was quoted on ESPN today saying 1984 was the first time. And he's clearly talking about two different players because he says the player in 1988 (possibly Kal Daniels) was asking him about steroids. The player in 1984 didn't say a word and Starr was just saying that was the first time he suspected someone of juicing.
Valid points.
I guess I just think it is a bit untoward of Starr to continue to throw this stuff out there. It is at best irresponsible, since he gives just enough information for people to speculate on who it might be, ostensibly dragging innocent people along for the ride through the mud.