With Jim Rice safely voted into the Hall of Fame thanks to tireless campaigning by certain  Boston writers, will they now turn their attention to Andre Dawson?

Dawson, who has slowly increased his vote totals to this year's 67 percent, is getting some early post-voting attention in the Boston Herald:

How could Rice get in and Dawson be left out? While hardly an outrage, Rice's induction accentuates Dawson's injustice.

Compare their resumes:

In 16 seasons and 8,225 at-bats with the Red Sox, Rice hit 382 home runs and batted. .298. He won the Ame  rican League MVP award in 1978 and finished in the top 10 six times. He won zero Gold Gloves and often filled the designated hitter role. He grounded into 315 double plays and stole 58 bases.

In 21 seasons and 9,927 at-bats, Dawson hit 438 home runs and batted .279. Remember, he played 11 years inside Olympic Stadium, which was not as cozy as Fenway Park. Dawson won the National League MVP in 1987, when the Cubs were last, and finished in the top 10 four times. He won 10 Gold Gloves, grounded into 217 double plays and stole 314 bases.

Dawson was among the best all-around players in history. The only criticism he heard was that he tended toward free swinging (his .323 on-base percentage wasn't stellar).

But the numbers do not lie in baseball, and Dawson's numbers are superior to those of Rice.

I'm not as insistent as I once was on this subject, but Rice's selection does make Dawson seem considerably more likely - if there is a big enough pool of voters who voted for Rice (Boston writers) while leaving Dawson off of their ballots.

Cue the Tim Raines and Mark McGwire discussion in 3, 2, 1 ...