Umpires, like Bruce Dreckman, may be getting replay help in the very near future. Frank Jansky/Icon SMI John Donovan's Mailbag Comments, questions or obviously unfounded criticism? To e-mail Donovan, use the form below. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND

Professional baseball is caught again, as it too often is, in a place between getting it done right and getting it done quickly. So baseball is doing what it always does: It's holding some meetings.

Commissioner Bud Selig, an opponent of instant replay for years, is bringing people together to talk about the feasibility of instituting replay after at least four home run calls were missed by umpires last week. At the same time, he's urging umps to try to speed along games, which have slowed measurably early this season.

Squeezing a radical idea like replay into the grand old game, while actually speeding it up, figures to be one difficult trick. But it's something baseball, in the interest of the game and its fans, is going to have to do. Before we all fall asleep. Or get really angry. Or both.

This year it takes about two hours and 52 minutes to complete an average, nine-inning game. That number has fluctuated, ever so slightly, for years. Back in 2003, for example, it took 2:48 to get through an average nine-inning National League game and (strangely) 2:44 to get through an American League one. Last season, splitting it down to leagues, it was 2:48 for the NL and a butt-numbing 2:54 in the AL.

Averaging out the two leagues, games took 2:51 to complete last year. So the clock is heading in the wrong direction.

"It's not the time so much, I always say," Selig told Charley Steiner on his XM radio show last week. "It's the pace of the game."

A couple of years ago, umpires were instructed to speed up the pace by enforcing rules that include a 12-second limit between pitches and pushing along pitching changes. Managers were expected, for example, to signal for a relief pitcher before reaching the baseline on their way to the mound. Umpires were urged to hurry along mound meetings. They were encouraged to get fidgety hitters back into the batter's box.

All these efforts and maybe others, if enforced, could indeed improve the pace of the game and slice the time overall. But those all could be negated if instant replay is instituted and we're all stuck waiting for reviews.

It's just part of the reason that Selig has been reluctant to push for replay. But that may be changing.

"I am reviewing everything," Selig told Steiner. "If there is something that doesn't in my judgment tamper with the history and tradition of the game in a negative way, then I will seriously consider it. That's where we are in this process."

Baseball may be ready to test replay -- probably only for home run calls -- in the Arizona Fall League. Some reports suggest that umps may look at it during next spring's World Baseball Classic, too.

If that happens, and if replay proves useful and speedy, implementing it may not be far behind. It could turn out to be the best of both worlds -- a quicker game where umps get the most important of calls right.

But if replay is clumsy and time-consuming -- even in the limited times it would be used -- we all could be back here complaining about long games and bad calls for years to come.

PLAYER OF THE WEEK

I'd have my laptop smashed to pieces and fed to me by angry Red Sox fans if I didn't acknowledge the fantastic job done last Monday by Boston's Jon Lester against the Royals. Forget his game Sunday in Oakland. The no-hitter against K.C. was a thing of beauty not only for the backstory -- his courageous and inspiring battle against cancer -- but also for the fortitude that he showed in the game itself. The 24-year-old lefty threw a shoulder-stretching 130 pitches in the no-no, 17 more than he'd ever thrown in a game as a pro. He went to five three-ball counts, walking two. He muscled up 23 pitches in the second inning alone. Somehow, all the effort made the accomplishment that much more impressive.

TEAM OF THE WEEK

One of the reasons the Red Sox are so good -- and there are plenty of them -- is that you just don't come into Fenway Park and win. Not without a good fight, anyway. The Sox have won their last 10 games at home, 12 of their last 13 in their last four series there -- including four straight wins last week -- and have a baseball-best 21-5 record in Boston. The reasons they're so good at Fenway are about what you'd figure: a familiarity with the hitter-friendly park, a rowdy and supporting crowd, home cooking, all that. Their home record is doubly important for the Red Sox because, away from Boston, they're a weak 10-17. That mark includes seven straight losses on the road, including three last weekend in Oakland. A couple of numbers to consider: Rookie Jacoby Ellsbury is hitting a team-best .361 at home, with a 1.067 OPS. And, overall, the Boston pitchers have a 3.50 ERA at home, almost a run and a half better than on the road.