Don't blame the players for being sissies

by Doc Rhyne, RNSports

[This post was inspired by a conversion on the Facebook wall of RNSports friend Ed Achorn, author of Fifty-nine in '84: Old Hoss Radbourne, Barehanded Baseball & the Greatest Season a Pitcher Ever Had, currently available wherever books are sold. In that discussion, Ed wondered aloud which players today certainly could not have cut it in the 19th Century's rough-and-tumble version of the game. The usual suspects were named: Manny, A-Rod, J.D. Drew, etc. Then so-called "tough" players were named, also the usual suspects: Jeter, Pedroia, Youkilis, etc.

[My response:]

I think we have to make a distinction between pitchers and position players. Teams talk about liking pitchers who "want to be handed the ball" regardless of the situation, and yet impose pitch counts on games and even seasons, limit appearances, etc. No hurler today would be allowed to repeat Radbourn's effort. On the other hand, position players are expected to go out and play every day, regardless of the situation, and yet are rested, platooned, and shuffled through rosters, teams and the DL like so many cards in a deck.

The common thread here is that ownership has so much capital invested in its assets (i.e., players), that it won't risk their depreciation. As fans, it's easy to pick on prima donna superstars; but for the vast majority of players (especially if you consider those in the minor leagues), ownership won't give players the opportunity to do what they did in 1884. Gone are the days when a manager would put his "nine best players on the field" every day.

Having said that, and I know he's retired, how 'bout Schilling?