On Tuesday, I checked the 25-man rosters of all 30 MLB teams, checking not for quality, but quantity - of players by positions. While this may not be the opening day roster, it was probably close.

Of the 30 teams:

• Most had 12 pitchers. Two teams - the Athletics and the Mets had 11 pitchers. the Mets actually only had 24 players on the 25-man roster. The Cubs, Giants and Indians had 13 pitchers. All others had 12.

• Four of the AL teams – Athletics, Red Sox, Royals and Tigers had a player named as a designated hitter. The other 11 teams did not.

• The three-man catcher appears to be a thing of the past. Only the Cubs carried three catchers. All other teams had two designated as catcher.

• Teams had between four and seven infielders and between four and seven outfielders designated. One should keep in mind that some players can play both infield and outfield positions (such as Danny Santana, Miguel Sano, Eduardo Escobar and Eduardo Nunez). Eight teams designated seven infielders, but only Oakland designated seven outfielders. The Athletics were also the only one to have only four infielders.

A lot of teams had four, five or six infielders and outfielders. But only the Royals had equal numbers of each (five).

• Half of the teams (15) had exactly six infielders. Fourteen teams had 4 outfielders; 11 teams had five outfielders. Five teams had either six or seven outfielders.

• The most common roster was 12 pitchers, two catchers, 6 infielders and 5 outfielders (9 teams had that).

• The Cubs, Mets, Athletics and Royals had unusual combinations of pitchers, catchers, infielders, outfielders and/or designated hitters that no other team had. Oakland's was most unusual - with 11 pitchers, 7 outfielders, only 4 infielders, 2 catchers and a DH. It's one of only 2 teams with 11 pitchers (all others had 12 or 13); only team with 4 infielders; only team with 7 outfielders, and one of four teams with 4 DHs.

P IF OF CA DH

Mets – 11 6 5 2

A's – 11 4 7 2 1

Cubs – 13 5 4 3

Royals – 12 5 5 2 1

Twins – 12 6 5 2 (most common)

I'm not sure of the significance of all of this. But if the Athletics, Mets, Cubs and Royals succeed with their unusual combinations of players, will other teams copy them?

Probably not.