The most suspicious word in Cubs baseball

If there is one word I never want to hear uttered again by a Cubs GM, manager or player to explain away mind-numbing, thoughtless decision-making, it’s “aggressive.”

I am in favor of a complete moratorium on the word because without it, the Cubs brain-trust apparently would no longer be able to excuse the incomprehensible kind of cognitive baseball we see all too often on this team. The word has taken on more than just its own meaning now: It has become this franchise’s verbal tool to get away with awful baserunning, bad lineups, incompetent personnel kept around for much too long, and more. When Cubs players or management use the word “aggressive,” be assured that what that really means is that critical thinking or a truly intelligent analysis of some Cubs “baseball horror” is not allowed. No change in thinking is needed.

Our latest case in point comes from the wacky baserunning instincts of newly-acquired Jacques Jones.

Like any other red-blooded Cubs fan, you probably had to settle yourself down when you watched Jones in Arizona run the bases like an oxygen-deprived Little Leaguer. Bad night to turn off all brain cells.

But apparently Jones is not apologizing—it’s excusable, you see—because it was done in the name of aggression.

Here’s how the Chicago Sun-Times reports it:

“He isn’t apologizing for being aggressive. It didn’t work out, he said about Wednesday night’s latest base-running episode, but he will err on the side of aggression every time.”

Here are Jones’ own words.

“You know what? If you’re not aggressive, then they say you should be. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. When things aren’t going well, you always try to make something happen.’’

No wonder a mediocre right-fielder who can’t hit against left-handed pitchers was signed by the Cubs for a contract that is way too long. He buys into the Cubs brass philosophy that has served the team so well for so many years.

Last month, Todd Walker committed a thoughtless, nonsensical base-running move against the Cardinals that may have cost the Cubs dearly. Let’s revisit it for just a moment:

In the first inning, Walker singled Ronny Cedeno over to third. The relatively slow Walker tried to take second on the throw to third even though it was a very low percentage gamble. The odds of Walker making it safely to second were way too low versus the cost should Walker have been out. Instead of having runners on the corners with only one out and Ramirez up, the Cubs had a runner on third with two outs. Despite Ramirez’s slow start, he was still one of the few real offensive threats in the lineup with Lee gone. The Cardinals pitched around him to get Mabry out easily and the inning was over.

Baker apparently had little problem with Walker’s base-running gamble.

“The throw wasn’t high enough to do that, but we’re working our guys to be aggressive on the bases,” he said.

Identifying the use of the word aggression in Cubland is not a trivial little game: It, in large part, explains why the Cubs are loaded year after year with lineups that are walk-impaired, why a third-base coach (Wendell Kim) is allowed to stay on the job for way too long after waving runners in in one suicidal move after another; why Corey Patterson is allowed to stay in the lead-off spot for months after not only having a low OBP but after usually going down on only a few pitches; why free swingers who don’t get on base are acquired in the off-season over and over again; and more.

It explains the wit and wisdom of our manager, too. Walks are not aggressive, folks: They clog the bases.

So I propose a moratorium on this word until further notice, and not because I don’t believe in being aggressive at the right time, but because the word is now the all-purpose excuse used by bad baseball thinkers to explain away the unexplainable. Whenever a Cubs player, manager or general manager uses that word, it should raise a red flag to all of us. It usually is a plea from the Cubs to immediately turn off our brains—just as they apparently have done—so that no change in thinking for the future has to take place.