Jim Rice spent the majority of his prime years batting in lineups with perenial MVP candidates like Cecil Cooper, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Carl Yaztremski, Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Bill Buckner, and Mike Greenwell. Most of the Red Sox line-ups during Rice's years included 5 or 6 of these guys in the order along with Rice. With Fisk, Boggs, and Yaz already in the Hall, and Cooper and Evans (in my opinion) being better players - it's safe to say Jim Rice had a lot of protection.  

Dawson was surrounded with Tony Perez, Gary Carter, Ellis Valentine, Larry Parrish, Warren Cromartie, Tim Raines, Al Oliver, Tim Wallach, Terry Francona, Hubie Brooks, Ryne Sandberg, Mark Grace, and Dwight Smith.  Of those players, only Raines, Sandberg, and Carter (two HOFers and another who may be very soon) were members of Dawson's line-up that finished ahead of him in OPS more than once.

Take out Ryno, Rock, and the Kid - then take out Boggs, Pudge, and Dewey Evans (probably the three most productive hitters in each guy's career line-ups) - Rice is still protected by Lynn, Buckner, Cooper, Yaz, and Greenwell - while Hawk is surrounded by a few seasons of Al Oliver and a few of Tony Perez (but not at the same time).  There's no arguing that both guy's probably made the other hitters around them better and more productive, but Rice had far superior teammates aiding him in the same way.

None of this is to say that Jim Rice is or isn't Hall of Fame worthy, I'm firmly planted on the fence on that one, but I'm arguing that Andre Dawson was a superior player both in his prime and in long term.  The numbers listed for thier average prime season are very close, with Dawson obviously getting the nod in the speed and defense categories and Rice topping him with most offensive numbers.  However, I don't think that those offensive numbers accurately reflect the men who put them up.  It's hard to say Rice didn't benefit from playing 6 years sandwiched in beween Yaz, Fisk, Evans, and Lynn.  Throw in Cecil Cooper for a few seasons, then finish up your career surrounded by Buckner, Boggs, Greenwell, Don Baylor, and Rich Gedman - and you've got yourself a pretty cushy line-up spot.  By no means am I saying that anyone could have put up Rice's numbers in that spot - but a star player suddenly looks like a super-star when he's got the entire MVP ballot of the late '70s/early '80s hitting around him.

Dawson, on the other hand, did not play 81 games a year in the cozy dimensions of Fenway Park.  It doesn't take much of an imagination to see the Hawk putting three or four extra long balls down that 302 foot right field line.  What amounted to pop outs on the Olympic Stadium warning track suddenly become three-run bombs in Boston (look what happened when Dawson, already aging, moved from Montreal to Wrigley).  Add into that the line-up protection Rice got and you start to seperate.  In that line-up, in that park, Dawson's power numbers jump (just like they did in 1987).  I'm not saying he hits 49 every year, but add 3-5 more dingers and 10-12 more ribbies, 10-15 more points on the batting average for the first 10 years of his career - with those numbers + Andre's throwing arm, fielding, and speed and he's a lock for the Hall and the difference between him and Rice is obvious.

I don't mean to take anything away from Jim Rice, he was a great player, but I firmly believe Andre Dawson was several notches above.

Completely aside of the Dawson vs. Rice argument... I don't like to play the "could have been" or "what if" game, but playing in a more power friendly park, like Jim Rice did, Andre Dawon might have tacked on 3-5 more homers a year in his first 10 season.  That puts him at around 478 long balls.  Without the beating Montreal's turf took on his knees, he certainly could have hit 2-3 more a year for his last 10 seasons, putting him over 500 where we no longer have is Dawson Hall worthy/is Dawson better than Rice discussions.

Maybe next offseason we can do this -- a "top 50 Cub games of all time"? Let me work on this later in the winter and early in the season.