What if baseball evolved with cricket roster rules?

Hey,

so I like both baseball and cricket and that led me to this thought experiment - what if baseball evolved with the same rules that cricket has regarding roster, subs etc.?

For context - in cricket you have a 11 player roster, where everyone fields and everyone bats. Bowlers (pitchers) have to bat. Subs are only for fielding usually only as injury replacement, they cannot bowl (pitch) nor bat.

Obviously these rules mean that versatility is much more in demand in cricket. Rosters usually feature all rounders who can bowl and bat (kinda like Ohtani) and even bowlers (pitchers) are way more competent with the bat than pitchers were in NL before DH was implemented. Also positions are not as "fixed" in cricket so when fielding, cricketers are used to playing different positions.

A cricket side XI will usually have around 4 bowlers (pitchers), 1 all rounder who cad do a bit of both, 1 wicket keeper (catcher) and 5 batsmen.

What do you think the game of baseball would look like if we had the same rules? Meaning 9 players is your whole roster for the game - no bullpens, no DH, no subs. Those 9 players will have to take care of fielding, pitching, and batting.