Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

The Future of Baseball

By Roel Torres
March 2, 2009

Magic

I rooted for Larry Bird and against Magic Johnson. I was born in Boston, MA, grew up in Worcester, MA, and basketball was my favorite sport. I've said this before, but I don't think I have ever loved a team as much as the '86 Boston Celtics. Not the 2001 Patriots who improbably launched a Super Bowl dynasty. Not the 2007 Celtics who rescued the team from years of mediocrity to win their seventeenth World Championship. Not even the 2004 Red Sox who ended a miserable 86-year curse. No. The '86 Celtics stood alone. They were an amazing team. But, more importantly, they were an amazing team when I was fourteen years old. And that's when you learn to love a team. That's when you can be a true sports fan, filled with pure, unfiltered passion. At fourteen, I didn't have a driver's license, I didn't have a girlfriend, and I certainly didn't have a monthly mortgage payment to worry about. All I had was sports. And the Celtics were the center of my world.

I loved the players on that team – their talent, their chemistry. It was stacked with all-stars and Hall of Famers. Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, Walton, Sichting, and Wedman. They would run teams out of the Garden. They would blow teams out.

As much as I liked the Celtics, I had a proportionally inverse dislike for the Los Angeles Lakers. They were the rivals. They were the enemy. Equally talented, equally loaded, they took the court with players like Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Rambis, Byron Scott. And Magic. Of course there was Magic.

Basketball had never seen a player like Magic Johnson. Literally. He was a 6'9” point guard who was as tall as some centers (like Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, or Alonzo Mourning, for example), yet passed the ball better than anyone on the planet. It was a scary combination of phyiscal gifts and virtuosic talent. One of things I distinctly remember from that period, over twenty years ago today, is that writers, announcers, and analysts kept making the same pronouncement about Magic Johnson: he was going to “revolutionize the game.” Everyone predicted that players would undergo a radical evolutionary shift. They were going to get bigger and stronger while also developing better skills. That was the natural direction of the game. That's where everything was headed.

While I suspect that the idea is true, Darwin pointed out that evolution does not take place overnight. Rather, it happens over the span of several lifetimes. So even as players continue to grow bigger, stronger, faster and refine their marvelous skills, we might never live to see the day when all ten players on the court look like Magic Johnson.

Future Days

evolution (n.) - A gradual process of changes into a different, more complex, or better form.

revolution (n.) - A sudden and momentous change in situation.

Where is baseball going? What changes will we see that could dramatically alter the landscape of the game in the years and decades and centuries that stretch before us? How will it be played differently, who will be playing it, and will we be able to recognize the sport of baseball a hundred years from now? Will the changes come gradually, by way of evolution, or will they come suddenly, like a revolution?

I like thinking about the future of baseball. I might as well share my thoughts, as crazy and radical and ridiculous as they are. Let's go.

The Babe, Jackie, and Bill

Major League Baseball has undergone some seismic shifts in its history, thanks to a few revolutionary individuals. Babe Ruth dragged the sport out of the deadball era into the technicolor excess of a new, home-run happy age. Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers, broke the color line, and created a level playing field for all athletes regardless of their skin color. And the man who runs this site, Mr. Bill James, began his own quiet revolution by crunching numbers, analyzing the sport, and discovering the hidden knowledge of how to build teams and win games. Baseball was a different game before each of these men came along, and it was a better one after they made their contributions.

When Bill pointed out the utility of On-Base Percentage, front offices and general managers started to value the players who could get on base. If you could no longer take advantage of market inefficiencies by hoarding players with good OBPs, then maybe defensive measurements were the next frontier? Certainly with zone ratings, and +/- stats, great baseball minds were trying to quantify the defensive impact of individual players.

But let's be honest: there is really nothing radical or innovative about the idea of gathering good defensive players. I suspect that defense has been valued since the beginning of the game. What are some of the truly unexpected changes that would make it difficult for us to picture the game a hundred years from now? Let's start with ambidexterity and the art of switch-pitching.

1) We will see more Ambidextrous Pitchers in the future

Mickey Mantle, Eddie Murray, and Chipper Jones are happy to smash the ball batting either lefty or righty. Switch-hitters aren't all that extraordinary. Switch-pitchers are a little more unusual. There have been pitchers who've thrown both lefty and righty, but with less success and fanfare than Mantle, Murray, and Chipper. The three best switch-pitchers who I'm aware of are Tony Mullane, Greg Harris, and Pat Venditte. Mullane and Harris were Major Leaguers, Venditte played Div I ball, got drafted, and is playing in the minors right now. All three are documented ambidextrous pitchers. So it can be done. But clearly, it's very difficult to do at the highest level. Mullane and Harris switched hands more as a novelty than as a weapon, and Venditte hasn't demonstrated he's ready to bring his act to the Major Leagues.

The difficulty level is relatively intuitive, the math makes sense. Throwing a ball at the Major League level is difficult. Throwing a ball at the Major League level with both arms seems slightly preposterous. But if Mullane, Harris, and Venditte have already started paving this road on the College, Minor League, and Major League levels, then it seems like an exceptional athletic specimen would be able to build off their precedent and develop a devastating ambidextrous arsenal.

The advantages would be obvious – platoon differentials would be difficult to exploit, pitch counts could be expanded as each arm takes a separate level of stress, and roster size could be maximized with a reduced need for carrying relief specialists on the roster.

I'm not saying it will be easy. I'm saying that a) it's possible, b) there are clear benefits to be gained from it, and c) a hundred years is a long time to develop a new complement of skills. Think of it this way: Mickey Mantle wasn't the first switch-hitter. He was just the best one. I don't expect Pat Venditte to be the final product of the revolution. I just want him to be the trigger man.

2) There will be more Two-Way Players in the future

I was fascinated by the off-season stories of Ichiro Suzuki throwing off a mound and working on his pitching as a possible contingency plan for the World Baseball Classic. It seemed like an entertaining notion – Ichiro has a cannon for an arm, he is acutely aware of his mechanics and his conditioning, so why not let him throw an occasional inning or two?

I think that as the game evolves, Major League Baseball will start developing a plethora of players who can pitch and hit. To be honest, the growing evidence for this trend is pretty substantive. Names like Brooks Kieschnick, Micah Owings, Rick Ankiel, Carlos Zambrano, Dave McCarty, and Adam Loewen jump to mind immediately as recent modern examples.

Brooks Kieschnick was a legitimate two-way player for the last couple of years of his career in Milwaukee, making appearances as a both a hitter and a pitcher. Micah Owings has been a starting pitcher for the Diamondbacks and the Reds, who is regularly called on to pinch hit because of his .319/.355/.552 lifetime stats in the Majors. In 2000, Rick Ankiel started 30 games, won 11, and had a 3.50 ERA as a rookie, then transformed himself into a centerfielder who hit 25 homers last year. Carlos Zambrano batted .337/.337/.554 last year with 4 HRs and 14 RBIs in 83 AB in 2008. Dave McCarty put up a 2.45 ERA and a .818 WHIP in 3 mound appearances in 2004 while making over 80 appearances as a first baseman and outfielder. And Adam Lowen has started 29 games as a pitcher for the Orioles in the last three years, but is now undergoing a conversion as a hitter because of the damage sustained by his arm.

Clearly, “a pitcher who can hit” or “a hitter who can pitch” is not some far-fetched, fanciful notion. These athletes exist, and they walk among us even now. But their skills are rarely utilized to full capacity. With the possible exception of Kieschnick, rarely are they expected to contribute equally on both sides of the equation.

It's odd that in a sport where the most iconic player in history was a left-handed pitcher who was converted into a slugging outfielder due to his batting prowess, that there isn't a greater proliferation of athletes who hit and pitch. I suspect that people think it's hard to develop both sets of skills. Except that players like Kieschnick, Owings, Ankiel, and Zambrano seem to have done it with a decent level of success without any undue hardship.

Maximizing your players' abilities is smart. Necessary, even. The mantra for most teams when they bring a young player into their developmental system is to force a prospect to choose one path or the other. In the future, I would not be surprised is teams started to think of ways to harness the full range of a player's abilities. It seems like a natural progression.

3) There will be more Multi-Sport Athletes in the Future

Jeff Samardzija is a pitcher for Chicago Cubs. Before he was a Major Leaguer, he was better known as a record-setting wide receiver while playing college football at Notre Dame. He was considered a superior football prospect over a baseball one, and there was discussion about whether he would try to play both sports coming out of college. Instead, he made a choice and dedicated himself to baseball.

Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Brian Jordan. For a while there, it seemed like NFL players were regularly invading the Major Leagues. Elite athletes with power, strength, speed, and coordination realized that they could play more than one sport at the highest level.

Football isn't the only sport that allows athletes to cross-over. Guys like Mark Hendrickson, Danny Ainge, and Gene Conley were all NBA players who also played in the Majors, while Michael Jordan walked away from the NBA for a while to play minor league baseball.

I think that this is a relatively untapped source of talent. As athletes advance to higher levels of competition, it becomes more and more difficult to dominate in more than one field. But so many athletes possess natural gifts that translate well across different sports – strength, speed, coordination, focus, competitive instincts – that baseball would benefit from a greater influx of two-sport athletes. I think that as the sport evolves, we will see more and more superior athletes crossing over, learning to compete in the NBA or the NFL as well as the Majors simultaneously.

4) There will be a greater presence of players from China in the Majors

One out of every five people on the planet is Chinese. Any time the nation of China dedicates their attention to a sporting activity, they are uniquely positioned to achieve a global impact at the sport's highest levels. Because of the structure of their government and the sheer overwhelming supply of their population base, they have greater resources to dedicate to any given task than any other country on the planet.

China's interest in basketball is relatively recent, but it has enjoyed an explosion of popularity in the country having produced NBA players like the freakishly coordinated 7'6” All-Star Yao Ming and his Olympic teammates -- the 21 year-old seven-footer Yi Jianlian who currently plays for the New Jersey Nets, and seven-footer Wang Zhizhi who played for the Mavericks, the Clippers, and the Heat in his five-year NBA career. Once China took an interest in basketball, Chinese players started to compete in the NBA.

Baseball is already popular in several Asian countries, like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. With players like Chien Ming Wang, Hee Seop Choi, Byung Hyun Kim, Jae Seo, Shin Soo Choo, Ichiro Suzuki, Hideki Matsui, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Takeshi Saito, Hideki Okajima, Kenji Johjima, Hiroki Kuroda, Hideo Nomo, and so on – it seems clear that players who develop their craft in Asian leagues can come in, compete, and thrive in the Majors. China is only beginning to notice the sport of baseball. If and when it ever decides to bring its undivided attention to America's Pastime, I truly believe that the impact will be dramatic.

Conclusion

While the NBA is still full of players of varying sizes and skill levels, it's clear that Magic Johnson's influence has reverbrated through the game. Players like Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, and LeBron James went on to develop playing styles that were not strictly defined by their size, but rather by the diverse set of skills they had mastered. Every player is not yet Magic Johnson. But he provided the template, and the game is racing fast to try and catch up.

History has shown us that when an evolutionary advantage develops, it is adapted until it eventually becomes the standard. It does not happen with immediacy, and it might not happen in the course of one lifetime, but natural selection always favors adaptive advantages over time. In a hundred years, there will be a switch-pitching outfielder/reliever from China playing in both the NBA and the Majors. And when he takes the mound, just remember that you heard it here first.

 

 

 

 

 

If you have any thoughts you want to share, I would love to hear from you.  I can be contacted at roeltorres@post.harvard.edu.  Thank you.

 
 

COMMENTS (19 Comments, most recent shown first)

jollydodger
When I think of ambidextrious pitchers, I always think of Billy Wagner. He was a right-handed pitcher when he was young. He broke his arm or something, and then pitched lefty....all the way to a great MLB career as a lefty. I think, with talent, all it takes is reps. A righty pitcher who can just be average as a lefty would be usefull. the lefty-lefty platoon advantage is more severe than R-R. He'd never have to learn how to throw 95 as a lefty (as Wagner did), but just 85 or so, and the efforts would be worthwhile.
12:32 AM Mar 12th
 
enamee
I actually suspect that the pitcher/hitter thing is more of an anomaly, and that the quality of play has indeed risen. One way to look at quality of play is to look at competitive balance. Lower-quality leagues tend to have greater gaps between the haves and the have-nots. (The NCAA has .700+ teams and teams under .300 every year; in MLB it's exceedingly rare. In high school ball, you'll have some teams go undefeated and some never win a game.) My piece on competitive balance suggests that the quality of play has gone steadily upwards throughout history.
5:23 PM Mar 9th
 
evanecurb
Matthew:

There are certain variables that, historically, have correlated with higher quality of play. I know that the number of double plays has historically been correlated with a higher quality of play. I can't remember what the other variables are. Wild pitches, maybe? number of walks? (Negative correlation) Bill J wrote an article about it in the historical abstract beginning from the thesis that certain variables change consistently from the lower levels of baseball to the higher levels. He then took these variables and looked at them in certain time periods and found that the quality of play in major league baseball has improved consistently. You could probably find the original thesis and check to see if quality has declined by that measure.
12:58 AM Mar 7th
 
enamee
Here's a thought: is the quality of play in Major League Baseball declining? I haven't checked, but we sure seem to have a lot more pitcher/hitters now than throughout most of the Lively Ball Era. Greater specialization does seem to accompany increased quality of play; if that is in fact true, then might players like Ownings and Kieschnick and Ankiel be evidence that the quality of play has gone down?

I actually have no position on this, but it was my first reaction.
12:34 PM Mar 6th
 
RoelTorres
"A team will make it to the World Series after eleven straight seasons of last place finishes. A Hawaiian of mixed race (1/2 Caucasian, 1/2 African American) is elected president of the US after narrowly defeating a woman in his party's primaries. The Dow drops 50% in less than twelve months, and housing prices fall by 25% in one year. No, wait, forget that last paragraph; things like that could never happen....."

Okay -- that made me laugh.

Thanks, Evan!
11:01 AM Mar 4th
 
evanecurb
Roel makes an excellent point about the fans 100 years ago (1908-09 off season). I think their expectation was that the Cubs would continue to be the dominant team for awhile. I think these predictions are fun, and I don't see anything wrong with "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" especially since Roel puts so much tought and detail into the predictions. Here are some things I think are likely within the next 100 years:

Major league baseball expands beyond North America, with teams in Asia and Latin America. These are baseball hotbeds. I don't know what, if anything, will bring the sport to Europe. International competition will become a bigger deal, with a tournament that rivals soccer's World Cup in popularity (at least outside of Europe).
Continued study of proper pitching mechanics, conditioning, and training methods leads to major advances take place in pitchers' durability, reversing the trend of the past 30 years and enabling the best pitchers to throw more innings than at present. Pitching staffs shrink as a result.
Artificial turf is eliminated from the game as turf management continues to improve.
A team will make it to the World Series after eleven straight seasons of last place finishes. A Hawaiian of mixed race (1/2 Caucasian, 1/2 African American) is elected president of the US after narrowly defeating a woman in his party's primaries. The Dow drops 50% in less than twelve months, and housing prices fall by 25% in one year. No, wait, forget that last paragraph; things like that could never happen.....

11:50 PM Mar 3rd
 
Richie
Yes, I see he just recently crashed a BP chat pretending to be you. Must be that sheriff's badge you got out of that box of Cocoa Puffs back when you were 5. I guess your holding onto it paid off, courtesy of the Arizona folks stripping their toy badge away from the Shaqster.

OK, no more bad jokes for awhile. I promise.
3:26 PM Mar 3rd
 
RoelTorres
Richie,

I think I might try out being Shaq for a while. It would be awfully convenient since I've heard through the grapevine that Shaq wants to be me.
1:30 PM Mar 3rd
 
Richie
Oh, but don't pick BF. Don't even know why he had a credit card. Spent all his time writing preachy pseudo-novels with a pseudo-himself as the hero. I suggest being Shaq. Watch those female rappers, tho.
12:36 PM Mar 3rd
 
Richie
BF Skinner was an idiot. To put it curtly. Roel, I advise you to be someone else and do what they do. At least until they take a scissors to your credit card.
12:31 PM Mar 3rd
 
schoolshrink
Roel, again I appreciated your article and wish I had said more about the background and detail during my initial post. I enjoyed the detail very much. I read it as an op-ed piece and appreciated it on that level. One of the things about posting on this web site is that the readers, by their nature of being stat fans detail oriented, are likely to provide the kinds of responses you received. Bill James is that way -- and like you he puts his work out there for one to take or leave. He also is pretty curt in responding, and I have to think that his response style will resonate among many of the members of this site. I know I have curt tendencies and have to temper them.

I mean it is one thing to say you appreciate the opportunity for feedback from this site, but the feedback had better be meaningful enough to keep you motivated to write. One of my heroes is the late Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner. Here are definitions for you:

Reinforcement: The presentation of a reinforcer following a response that increases the probability of the recurrence of the response.

Punishment: The removal of a positive reinforcer, or introduction of a negative one, that decreases the probability of the recurrence of the response.

If you are likely to continue to offer articles like this one, you do need some feedback, positive and negative, to motivate or reinforce you to do so. Be yourself and do what you do.
2:25 AM Mar 3rd
 
RoelTorres
Hi folks,

There are a lot of excellent points being made on why some of the things I say are improbable. I don't think I want to mount a vigorous defense on my own behalf, because it really won't advance the discussion much further. There's really no proper way to justify your predictions of the future. I'm either right or wrong, and we won't know for another hundred years. We can talk about it then.

I will say a couple of things though:

--I didn't want to predict things that seemed too obvious or too likely, because there's really no benefit to stating the obvious.

--In trying to imagine things 100 years down the road, I tried the perspective of an observer a hundred years ago watching today's game. Instant replay on home runs? Lefty one-out relievers? The fact that we can't imagine it and it doesn't seem likely really isn't grounds for disqualifying it.

--My basic premise on some of these ideas (multi-sport athletes, ambidextrous pitchers, two-way players) is this -- the elite athlete of the future will start to approach superhuman physical abilities, and this ideal physical specimen will be able to do whatever he chooses in dominant fashion. Maybe I should have written that into the essay. But that's the half-baked logic behind it.

I do appreciate the time people have taken to comment, even if only to point out where they disagree. All I know is, guys like Pat Venditte, Bo Jackson, and Brooks Kieschnick have done these things. So the question is not whether it can be done, but whether it will be done with greater frequency over time.
9:27 PM Mar 2nd
 
schoolshrink
Roel, I liked your article better than some of the other readers; it was fun reading after all. But I would suggest that the evolution in baseball is closer to intelligent design at this point. (Where is the rim shot when you need one?) There is too much of a financial stake in the way the sport is designed today to lead me to think there will be such evolution in these areas. Even #4 will be a controlled evolution as such an influx of Chinese, or Indian, or players from other nations will lessen the likelihood that Americans will watch at the rate we watch today. Lets say that hypothetically our teams get increasingly bought up by Chinese investors who want to design them in their image. If that happens, the sport will lose fan support. When the Seattle Mariners were bought by the CEO of Nintendo of America, becoming the first Asian owned team, there were concerns around the league of what precedent that would set. I do think some of the concern was simple bigotry, but beyond bigotry one concern seemed reasonable to me: what if Americans lost interest in watching foreign players? There continued to be enough enthusiasm for the sport to keep that from happening in 1995, but if the Chinese, among others, start developing talent at a fast rate, would there be a tipping point where we would lose interest? Or if the Chinese were to buy our mortgages to develop their talent here, and the Asian influence becomes even more obvious, I think there would be a chance where white Americans, and possibly blacks and latinos would lose interest. Black Americans have already expressed this concern, wondering from where the Vida Blue's and Hank Aaron's will spring in the future. Perhaps this prediction is incorrect, but I think Americans that pay tickets want to watch players who look like them, who they can aspire to become. Of course, if the Chinese have all the money in 100 years, sell tickets to like-minded fans and take up baseball, that won't be a problem.

In other words, you will have an evolution when the financial circumstances are in place for such change to happen. Of course baseball is evolving, but it has to be a fiscally solvent evolution for it to happen. I do not have any evidence of this, but do believe that a factor keeping integration from happening any sooner than Jackie Robinson's arrival was the question of who would pay for tickets if blacks were to dominate. Perhaps black Americans would be more involved and represented in the sport today if we did not keep them from developing their skills and respected their contribution to the sport when it mattered.

I don't think we will see the same thing happen were the Chinese to dominate -- certainly we will not see de jure discrimination. But the popularity of the sport would likely take a hit. The development of player skills would be based on the natural skill set of Chinese players were we to see a major influx.

Finally, for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. The response of Magic Johnson has been little guys who can penetrate and dish the ball out (John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Chris Paul, et. al.) European players attempted to model themselves after Magic -- I remember Bill Walton commenting about it when describing Toni Kukoc. But one swallow doesn't make a summer, and one Magic or Randy Johnson does not mean you will see another one any time soon. In his historical abstract, Bill mentioned in 2000 after the home run/steroid era of the late 90's that small players could come in and be productive. His timing was impeccable: 2001 was Ichiro's rookie season. And if the sport were to be dominated by small ball players, there would again be an evolution in the other direction. I must say that I disagree completely with your last comment. Evolution always ebbs and flows, and though certain skills become more important or successful in a generation, the skills themselves will never be standardized.

8:22 PM Mar 2nd
 
Richie
The thing with ambidexterity is that it would add a very real and important advantage, being able to pitch alot more often. Multi-sporting and 2-waying, not really, all that much. And the non-arm aspects of pitching - leg drive, mental, what have you - ought to translate over regardless of which hand you then throw with.

Not predicting that it could happen in any kind of numbers. But I could see an outlier managing it, and thriving thereby.
6:22 PM Mar 2nd
 
SeanKates
Rowen basically wrote what I was thinking when I read this. However, to go a step further, you can actually look at the evolutionary theory you start the article with as confirmation. Work by Gould (a SABR member to boot!) and others has shown that evolution generally NARROWS the "skill set," if you will, of species. Things become more specialized, not less so. Species are more likely to split into separate species that perform two separate tasks than they are to develop the ability to do two tasks better as one species.

In this instance, we have already moved in that direction. There are two species of pitchers (RHP and LHP) who have each dominated one specific task. This is the natural evolution of pitching, not having one group of people develop two separate skills better at the same time.

I do agree with number 4, but that's the way of the world. Future more open society + a billion people is a pretty good combo.
6:01 PM Mar 2nd
 
Trailbzr
I agree with Richie. As the world flattens, more of it will become a recruitment source. I saw a news story just last night about tryouts in India to see if anyone could through a ball 89 mph. ( A couple of javelin throwers could.)

But the other suggestions run counter to the trend that as baseball becomes harder, it will become less likely anyone could play it at a major league level using their secondary skills. Before there'd be a true/hitter, there'll be a guy who throws mop-up while providing an extra bat.

I think the next revolution in baseball will be either a further technological improvement of bats, or rule changes to prohibit them. (The latter one possibly after an infielder is injured or a spectator killed by a splintered one.)
4:59 PM Mar 2nd
 
rowen
The fundamental problem I see with ideas 1, 2, and 3 is that they run completely contrary to the evolutionary trend that we've been seeing over the past few decades, which is the increased specialization of talents. Talent specialization has in turn been a natural consequence of increased efficiency in talent procurement & development, as baseball has become more wide-spread and has offered greater economic opportunities. All of these concepts -- pitchers as two-way players, multi-sport players, ambidextrous pitchers, left-handed infielders -- existed 100 years ago but have been "bred out" of the population due to evolutionary selection. Put simply, it's too hard to excel at any single one of these things, and trying to excel at two of them is inefficient. I'm sorry to say this, but I think this article is a very poor attempt at prognostication and reflects nothing more than the author's desire to say "gee, wouldn't it be cool if...."
4:51 PM Mar 2nd
 
Richie
'4' seems to be a given, tho' perhaps you're overstating it. At first I thought '1' was ridiculous. But when you cited the advantages, well, yeah, thanks to you I now can see the potential. And my guess is that ambidexterity is teachable.

There is a clear, very strong trend AWAY from multi-sport athletes. Multi-sporting is devolutionary, not evolutionary. As to 2-way baseball players. If they decided not to do it with Babe Ruth, for goodness' sake, I can't see anyone coming along better equipped to do it than he was.

Oh, and Grant Hill is nothing like Magic was. Like Rick Barry, maybe. Nothing especially remarkable about an NBA forward who can also dribble and pass well.
4:38 PM Mar 2nd
 
evanecurb
Roel: Some of these make a lot of sense, particularly the ones about China and two way players. My predictions: Left handed catchers will become as commonplace in the big leagues as left handed QBs in the NFL. I also believe we will see left handed infielders as well.
4:33 PM Mar 2nd
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy