There’s no relief for overusing MLB relievers

NOW THAT automatic intentional walks have helped speed the pace of MLB games by a few seconds per month, a frequent suggestion from readers on how to further speed the pace is to limit in-inning relievers to two or three warm-up pitchers, down from eight. After all, how many relievers enter before they’ve warmed up?

That would help a bit, except it would eliminate one 30-second TV com- mercial per change. Team owners would approve two outs per inning before reducing TV revenue.

What MLB would love to fix, it can’t. It can’t change the way new-age managers manage, no matter how preposterously counter-productive.

The prescripted use of bullpens — relievers assigned to specific innings no matter how effective the starter or previous reliever, is a primary factor in killing the game.

The Dodgers’ 6-3, 8½-inning win over the Mets on Thursday reasonably should not have run more than 2:45. But 10 pitchers were used, thus it ran 3:33.

Games that once typically included four, five, six pitchers now include 10, 11, 12. Wednesday, 13 pitchers appeared in the Padres’ 3-2 nine-inning win against the Cubs.

Tuesday on YES’ Angels-Yankees, ex-pitcher

Al Leiter told an interest- ing story about being disarmed by umpires such as

Rich Garcia, who admitted to him at the end of a half-inning that he may have blown a strike call.

Leiter said he appreciated that. “Umpires are not robots.”

Agreed, but when did managers begin to view relievers, so many of them big league transients, as robots? How often can they always be relied upon to be at their best? Never. So why remove one who is pitching well for a designated seventhor eighth-inning reliever, not to mention a closer who frightens no one.

If you have a B or C reliever pitching like an A pitcher, why yank him for another B or C pitcher? Why do managers insist on replacing relievers until finding one the other team can crush?

Prescripted baseball games only guarantee this: One of the two teams will lose.