I think there’s a big difference between learning that someone needs to sit and being the kid who sits most all the time. IMO, it’s one of those rich get richer things. Those that play are more likely to get better than those who sit on the bench. They are more likely to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. They will gain more experience in reacting to situations as they happen.
I don’t think anyone believes that baseball players don’t benefit from actually playing the game. That is what it’s all about to baseball players. That is why they are called baseball “players”.
That said, I think sitting on the bench is something every player needs to experience. It builds character and can make the right player hungry. However, it’s also one of the main reasons young kids quit the game before they have had a chance to develop. It's also more "fun" to play! Often coaches use "benching" as a form of punishment. If for some it is punishment to sit, how does the kid sitting all the time feel about it?
A young kid sitting on the bench for one of the top 14U travel teams in the country might be good enough to be on the field for the 10th or 20th best team in the country. I don’t see it as a money spent thing. Even if both teams were fully sponsored and it didn’t cost the player any money to play on either team, I could understand why someone would choose to play rather than sit. At the same time, we all know someone has to sit.
At some point, most players will experience sitting. Those able to deal with that are usually well respected by coaches and teammates. Those who can’t deal with it either quit or are told to leave. IMO, this is not a process that should take place any earlier than necessary. Guess I’m saying it’s a good thing to experience sitting on the bench (for many reasons), but it’s a better thing to be on the field (for development).
Professional baseball may not be perfect, but they figured this out many years ago. Baseball players need to play! Those they are most interested in developing (have the most invested in) play, while the bench is loaded with the extra guys. Once in a while an extra guy gets his chance and makes the most of it and becomes someone that the club gets more interested in. But usually these extra guys end up released or they decide to move on in life. Then there are those who make the Big Leagues and there they learn to sit. But those guys are paid very well to sit on the bench. For the most part, the organization prefers to keep young players in the minor leagues where they are out there playing every day rather than sitting on the bench on the Big League team all year. In other words they understand the importance of playing.
Some might think it makes no sense to use professional baseball as an example. Point is… If the highest level believes playing is so important for development, why would it be any different for the lowest level or the levels in between? Granted much can be learned sitting on the bench. But baseball players are developed on the field. Some of both might be worthwhile.
IMO this also relates to college decisions. If someone is most interested in developing their playing ability for future opportunities, they should strongly consider how often they will be in the games. In other words… what is the level or the program where I am most likely to play. There actually are some that would rather sit at the power program than play at a lesser profile program. Nothing wrong with that, if that is what they want. In fact, those guys can be a great asset and are usually very well liked by their teammates. But college coaches recruit players they want on the field, playing in the games.
These are just my opinions. Some will agree, some will disagree. Very good points by everyone, good discussion!