Are the Lakers a better team with Sessions?

Barack Mamba · Post #1 » by **Barack Mamba** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:59 am

They certainly look better, and he's had some very nice performances.

But do the stats show improved team success since he was acquired?

mysticbb · Post #2 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:43 am

Well, we can look at the performance level of the Lakers by checking the scoring margin in games with Sessions and the games before while adjusting it for HCA and strength of schedule.

First 41 games without Sessions and with Fisher: 3.1 SRS
21 games with Sesssions: 0.4 SRS

It clearly looks like the Lakers are worse after the trade. They had 12 homes games and 9 road games. The HCA this season is 2.8, the average SRS of the opponents was 0.9.

During those 21 games the Lakers played 7 without Bryant. The average SRS for those 7 games was 1.8. The Lakers played an incredible tough schedule over those 7 games, the average SRS of the opponents was 1.8, they had 4 road games.

Well, the Lakers since the trade played worse than before that trade overall. And while with Sessions on the court the Lakers played better than with Fisher (+4.5 vs. +3.2), overall the team did not seem to have gained due to the trade.

Barack Mamba · Post #3 » by **Barack Mamba** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:38 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I hope this result is due to a small sample size.

mysticbb · Post #4 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:00 pm

The interesting thing is that I can't even point out why they end up being worse. My first idea was that missing Bryant is the key. A player like Bryant can easily cause a team losing 3 points, but the games without Bryant are even better than those with him.
Also, Sessions exceeded my expectations, but my expecation after the trade was that the Lakers will bascially stay put and not improve or decline, because Sessions is not as good as advertised by some, but he can replace Fisher. Now, Sessions shooting is excellent, he is playing well enough. At the beginning he seemed to have more consistency, but that also changed again, he is basically back to his normal scheme "playing two good games followed by two not so good games (or even bad) games". Somehow I doubt that he will keep his shooting efficiency up, thus the Lakers need to find the key to get back to their performance level before. Maybe it is a consistency issue and Fisher brought indeed the "leadership" in order to make them play more consistent?

Jazzfan12 · Post #5 » by **Jazzfan12** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:29 pm

mysticbb wrote:The interesting thing is that I can't even point out why they end up being worse. My first idea was that missing Bryant is the key. A player like Bryant can easily cause a team losing 3 points, but the games without Bryant are even better than those with him.
Also, Sessions exceeded my expectations, but my expecation after the trade was that the Lakers will bascially stay put and not improve or decline, because Sessions is not as good as advertised by some, but he can replace Fisher. Now, Sessions shooting is excellent, he is playing well enough. At the beginning he seemed to have more consistency, but that also changed again, he is basically back to his normal scheme "playing two good games followed by two not so good games (or even bad) games". Somehow I doubt that he will keep his shooting efficiency up, thus the Lakers need to find the key to get back to their performance level before. Maybe it is a consistency issue and Fisher brought indeed the "leadership" in order to make them play more consistent?

Bynum and the rest of the team are coasting on defense since the all-star break.