(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..