On the eve of the 1910 World Series, Chicago Cubs second baseman Johnny Evers made the case in The Chicago Herald that his manager was better than the manager of their American League opponent:
Johnny Evers,
“It is but natural that I should favor Chance. Just the same sentiment alone does not sway me when I say that he will outwit Connie Mack and that his managerial ability will be one of the greatest assets of the Cubs.
“Chance is without an equal in putting fight into a team. Here is a concrete example of his ability to fight against odds. Incidentally, it throws a mighty interesting sidelight into our fight for the pennant of 1908.
“In the latter part of the season, we were playing in Philadelphia. We lost a game which seemed to put us hopelessly out of the race.”
After losing 2 to 1 to the Phillies on September 18, the Cubs dropped 4 and ½ games behind the league-leading New York Giants.
“In those days we were riding to and from the grounds in carriages and we were pretty thoroughly licked that evening.
“We didn’t have a thing to say, for it seemed that our last hope had vanished and that we could not possibly get into the World Series.
“I think it was (Joe) Tinker who finally broke the silence. ‘Well, cap, we are done and we might as well celebrate our losing tonight,’ he said.
“Chance thought a few minute. ‘No, we won’t,’ he answered. ‘Boys, we have been pretty good winners. Now let’s show the people that we can be good losers. Let’s show then that we never give up; that we are never beaten. Let’s show then we play as hard when we lose as when we win, and that we fight for the pure love of fighting, whether it means victory or defeat.’
“Well, sir, you can’t imagine how that cheered us. We did fight and the baseball world knows that we won.”
Frank Chance
The Cubs went 13-2 after that loss to the Phillies, setting the stage for the October 8 game with the Giants to decide the pennant—the replay of the September 23, Merkle’s boner game:
“Chance’s ability as a fighter is not his only asset, for he mixes shrewdness with his fighting.
“And to my mind, he never gave a better illustration of his shrewdness than he did on that memorable afternoon that we met the giants in that single game.”
Evers said “a scheme had been framed up to beat” the Cubs, and when the team was six minutes into their allotted 20 minute of batting practice:
“(John) McGraw came up with bat and ball. We were told that we had been given all the time that was ours and would have to quit. Well, we were careful to find out just how long we had been batting, and Manager Chance then went up to protest.
“Joe McGinnity, the old pitcher, shoved him from the plate and struck him on the chest with a bat. The first impulse of Chance was to strike back. He restrained himself, and, looking the old pitcher squarely in the eye, he told him that he would smash his nose the first time they met outside the ballpark.
Joe McGinnity
“Chance returned to the bench and we talked it over. Chance guessed the scheme in an instant, and within a few hours what we suspected became a fact. McGinnity was there to invite an attack. Had Chance fought him, a policeman would have been called and both men would have been escorted from the field. The Giants would have lost a man they had no intention of losing, while the Cubs would have lost their manager as well as their first baseman, and the team would have been demoralized.”
Evers said Chance’s restraint “gave me a better insight into his real character than anything I ever witnessed before.”
Evers continues making his case for Chance on Wednesday.
Baseball History Daily 
“The Giants would have lost a man they had no intention of losing” should instead be “The Giants would have lost a man they had no intention of using.”
While I imagine that is what Evers meant, it is not what he wrote. I generally don’t clean up 100+-year-old quotes unless leaving them as is would cause the original meaning to be completely lost. In this case, I assumed the reader would infer what Evers meant regardless of how it was written.