I'm still hoping for suggestions on how to identify the truly elite relievers. I agreed the save stat today holds very little meaning, but I wasn't sure about the guys from the 70's and 80's, so I took a look. I looked at Wilhelm, Fingers, Eckersley, Sutter, Gossage, Quisenberry, Reardon, Sparky Lyle, Jim Kern, Kent Tekulve, Mike Marshall, Gene Garber and the early seasons for Lee Smith. I found that in their peak save years, they typically pitched more than 100 innings, often appeared in 70 or more games, and typically wound up with 25-35 saves. Clearly, ace relievers were not used in the closer role we now have..........until Eckersley in 1988, that seems to be where saves became far less meaningful, and closers were used strictly for the 9th inning. In Sutter's Cy Young season, which was 1979, he pitched in 62 games, totalling 101 1/3 innings, and ended with 37 saves......37 saves and he won the Cy Young. In Sutter's peak save year, which was 1984, he appeared in 71 games, racking up 122 2/3 innings, and ending with 45 saves. The closer role was beginning to take shape, but still, more than 1 1/2 innings per appearance. In '88, Eck became a full time closer, and right out of the chute, he appeared in 60 games, but only 70 2/3 innings, and walked off with 45 saves........clearly, expectations had changed. I would say, for pitchers before Eck, saves hold a lot more weight than they do for the guys from the 90's on up. Considering the increased workload, and the fact that often times the guys from the pre-Eck era inherited runners, I think a guy with 300 saves qualifies as elite for that era and belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's a lot cloudier than trying to judge a leadoff hitter, but my vote does not change, I still say yes to Sutter. John Franco and Trevor Hoffman will not move me with their save totals, they have a completely different meaning, but Bruce, with the number he had when a save actually meant his team had a realistic chance to lose, has my support.