It’s an age-old debate rife with controversy, a taboo topic conversation piece alongside politics, religion, and your wife’s sister. What makes us who we are? To what can we attribute our successes or blame our failures? It’s obvious to most that they aren’t mutually exclusive. In some cases nature takes the lead, while in others nurture is predominant.
It is now to the point that I think I should resign as a writer for Raptors Republic. Three games covered, three early deficits, three displays of lethargic play, and three losses. I’ll keep trucking and hoping that the Raptors turn things around when under my writing microscope, while in the meantime, I refuse to mail in this article the way the Raptors mailed in tonight’s loss to the Indiana Pacers.
This I can explain. His low usage rate when he is on the floor minimize his impact on team stats, such as team O/D rating and even plus minus (since that stat also accounts for the other members of the rotation. However, when he is being used, his individual stats, or the stats that are only dependant on his contributions, he looks pretty good, pretty great even.
Basically, like what everyone else has been saying, it comes down to usage rate. Involve him enough in the offense and there's no reason why his individual efficiency won't be reflected in the team stats.
Now here's where you might say "but the raptors lose more when he shoots more than average, so the usage rate argument doesn't hold up". That's a fair point, but I would argue that Jonas often gets those extra field goals when A) the guards are putting up a ton of bricks and Jonas is cleaning the glass, or B) he's a last resort after its clear that the other scoring options aren't working. In both scenarios, the team as a whole is playing below average, so it makes sense that they would win a lower percentage of games.