(Ed. Bumped to top because people need to see this.)

After reading some of the more outrageous comments about how Adam Dunn caused the Reds to lose, I spent wasted 15 minutes looking at his game logs. The Reds were far better with Dunn than without. This is something that should be obvious to anyone, but sadly, isn’t.

The Reds, without, and with Adam Dunn:

With Dunn
Year W L Wins Per 162 G
2001 31 35 0.470 76
2002 76 82 0.481 78
2003 54 62 0.466 75
2004 76 85 0.472 76
2005 71 88 0.447 72
2006 79 81 0.494 80
2007 69 83 0.454 74
2008 50 64 0.439 71
Total 506 580 0.466 75
Without Dunn
W L 162
35 61 0.365 59
2 2 0.500 81
15 31 0.326 53
0 1 0.000
2 1 0.667 108
1 1 0.500 81
3 7 0.300 49
5 6 0.455 74
63 110 0.364 59
Total
W L
66 96 .407
78 84 .481
69 93 .426
76 86 .469
73 89 .451
80 82 .494
72 90 .444
55 70 .440
569 690 .452

Breaking that down:

With Dunn, they were the equivalent of a 75-87 team. Not good, but much better than the 59-103 atrocity they were without him, and the 73-89 team they were, overall during his career.

Oh, and the D-Backs are 4-2 since they got him..