should be the new fashion for bullpens

Watching Astros closer Brad Lidge and Braves closer John Smoltz duel for multiple innings, the thought struck me, as I'm sure it did many fans: This is more like it; the best relievers, pitching in the most critical situations. This is the way the game should be played.

I know, I know: A best-of-five Division Series carries more urgency than your typical regular-season game, which is why Lidge entered Game 2 last week in a save situation with eight outs to go and Smoltz entered in the eighth inning with his team trailing by one run.

Still, in an era when teams are making increased use of statistical analysis to reduce inefficiencies, it's ridiculous that many managers fail to get maximum use out of their best late-inning relievers, restricting them to only one inning.

Tony La Russa, then with the A's, revolutionized the way bullpens were managed in the late 1980s, employing specialists and creating a one-inning closer, Dennis Eckersley. Other teams quickly followed suit, failing to grasp that La Russa had better starters, better setup men and a better closer than everyone else.

The sport needs another La Russa--or, more specifically, an updated version. A manager who will overturn the status quo. A manager who refuses to pay homage to the save rule. A manager who has the guts to revive the relief aces of the 1960s and '70s, using his top relievers for more than one inning, in tie games, when outs matter most.

The Red Sox, of course, tried such a plan last season, and the results were disastrous. But none of the relievers they had in the late-inning mix--Mike Timlin, Alan Embree, Bob Howry and Ramiro Mendoza--ever had closed successfully for a contender. The Sox's solution was to sign closer Keith Foulke, who can pitch more than one inning if necessary.

I know all of the arguments against the relief-ace concept; I invoked many of them myself when I questioned the Sox's arrangement. Relievers prefer narrowly defined roles. Closers train to pitch only one inning. Trying to create another 130-inning workhorse such as Rollie Fingers is as impractical as returning to the four-man rotation.

Many closers, relying on one or two pitches, lack the repertoire to succeed over multiple innings. They're accustomed to throwing all-out in brief spurts. Their stuff likely would diminish if they pitched longer. Their increased exposure to hitters would leave them more vulnerable.

All that is irrefutable. But for most teams, it makes no sense to pay huge dollars for an elite closer who works only 80 innings. And modern bullpens are a joke.

The performance of relievers fluctuates wildly from season to season. The Rockies, Indians and Blue Jays were among the teams whose seasons were ruined by poor decisions on relievers. The Cubs might have made the playoffs if their bullpen had performed better, Of the eight postseason qualifiers, only La Russa's Cardinals featured a bullpen with the type of depth his old A's teams had.

Surely teams can figure out a better way. Many top closers--Smoltz, the Dodgers' Eric Gagne, the Twins' Joe Nathan--are converted starters. Why can't they be conditioned to get more than three outs? Fifty-six of Nathan's final 59 regular-season appearances were one inning or less; not surprisingly, he wilted in his three-inning stint against the Yankees. When Lidge was Octavio Dotel's setup man earlier in the season, a 39-pitch outing would have been considered long, but not outrageous. When Lidge threw that many pitches as a closer in Game 2 against the Braves, working a season-high 22/3 innings, it was a cause celebre.

Rome wasn't built in a day. It's unrealistic for teams to implement a change as radical as the Red Sox attempted last season. But it's not so much to ask them to extend closers for more than one inning. Start with that, and maybe everything else will follow.

TOP FIVE POSTSEASON TRENDS

1 Wild doesn't mean mild. The last two world champions, the Angels and Marlins, were wild-card teams, and don't be stunned if that streak reaches three. The Red Sox were the most impressive team in the Division Series, sweeping the Angels by a combined 25-12 score. Boston's rotation is the best among the remaining playoff teams, thanks to Curt Schilling and Pedro Martinez, and the Red Sox's offense is mashing opponents. The Astros also entered the playoffs with the goods to win it all, especially when you consider the 1-2 pitching punch of Roger Clemens and Roy Oswalt. Why the success of wild cards? One theory: Those teams already are in postseason mode by the Division Series. Their win-or-go-home intensity was switched on in September.

2 Where's like home cooking? Having homefield or homecourt advantage usually is huge in the NFL and NBA playoffs. So far, it hasn't meant a lot in the baseball postseason; the road teams won eight of the first 15 games. Don't look for that trend to continue. The Yankees, who could play four home games in the ALCS, had the best home record in the majors during the regular season. The Red Sox had the second-best mark. The Cardinals, who won their first two home games in the playoffs, ranked third in home wins. The Astros, who still were alive entering the week, had a 19-game winning streak at Minute Maid Park before losing to the Braves last Sunday. With the elimination of the Twins and Angels, who were 0-4 combined at home, look for the home turf to be protected better.