Yesterday afternoon, the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) at last voted Andre Dawson into the Hall of Fame after eight years on the ballot. While some disagreed with the exemption of Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar, who finished just a few votes shy of the magical 75% minimum to get into Cooperstown, few felt that Dawson was unworthy of the induction.

And yet at the same time, Harold Baines, in his fourth year on the ballot, appeared on only 6.1% of the ballots and was dangerously close to not receiving the 5% requirement in order to stay on the ballot in future years. The lack of fanfair for Baines is somewhat understandable, considering he was only an All-Star six times and is most often remembered being traded for Sammy Sosa, a deal that George W. Bush once described as the greatest mistake he ever made -- which he, of course, said before he became president.

And yet when you compare Baines and Dawson, you find that their numbers aren't all that different. In fact, you can make a reasonable case that Baines compiled better stats than the Hawk, an eight-time All-Star and a one-time MVP.

There are some categories in which Dawson clearly has Baines beat. In stolen bases, for instance, Dawson collected 314 in his 21-year career and also hit 438 home runs, making him one of only three players (Bonds and Mays are the others) to accomplish both in a career. Comparitvely, Baines (who played 22 years) collected only 34 stolen bases in his career and hit 384 home runs, and while Dawson won eight Gold Gloves, Baines never won any.

However, Baines' lifetime batting average of .289 is superior to Dawson's .276. Baines also collected more hits (2,866 to 2,774), more RBI (1,621 to 1,591), more walks and less strikeouts in his career, and he currently has more hits and RBI than any other Hall-eligible batter to have not gotten into the Hall of Fame. While the case can be made that Dawson's speed, defense and general superstardom made him more worthy of the Hall than Baines, and that no one would argue that he wasn't the better player, the fact that one batter received 420 votes from the BBWAA while the other got 33 is startling.

Even more baffling is the case people are making to put Edgar Martinez into the Hall of Fame, while Baines' numbers are not only respectable, but are somewhat superior to Martinez's. Baines compiled 619 more hits, 80 more runs, 75 more home runs, and 34 more triples than Edgar. Martinez, who was the better pure hitter, finished with a fantastic .312 average and had a higher on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Both Baines and Martinez spent the bulk of their careers as designated hitters, and while Baines was at least a respectable outfielder, Martinez was atrocious at third base and even had a year in 1990 in which he recorded 27 errors.

And yet, despite all that, Martinez came away yesterday with 195 votes to Baines' 33.

While I neither advocate nor argue against Harold Baines' Hall of Fame qualifications, it's worth noting how little representation he's getting from the baseball writers, even though his statistics are more or less on par with Jim Rice, Edgar Martinez, Tony Perez and Andre Dawson (to a lesser extent). While people always note the significance of statistics in Major League Baseball, how no other league is more focused on numbers and how numbers alone can get someone into the Hall of Fame, it obviously isn't true in the case of Baines. Numbers alone just don't cut it: you need to have excelled in other areas as well, such as speed or defense, or have had the status as a superstar or as one of the game's best hitters or pitchers.

If it was just about numbers, Baines would be getting more votes, and he probably deserves them too if Edgar Martinez is going to get into the Hall.