According to yesterday's LA Times story, Lakers Coach Mike Brown has decided to shift World Peace from the starting lineup to the second string. The article notes that the coach is "giving World Peace a chance . . . to come off the bench." I feel that some protest is warranted.
What kind of message does it send to bench World Peace? We have reason to be disappointed in such a conventional strategy of turning to World Peace only after exhausting the aggressive efforts of the Lakers' starters. Think about how much
excitement the team could create if they instead activated World Peace
at the beginning of each game.
Wouldn't we prefer to see the Lakers fully embrace World Peace by placing World Peace at the forefront of their strategy this season, instead of holding World Peace in abeyance? Wouldn't we rather hear the announcer herald the arrival of World Peace at the outset of every game, rather than bringing World Peace in as an afterthought? Don't we want to encourage fans to think of World Peace first, rather than calling for World Peace only after other resources are tired?
We all want World Peace to succeed. Fans should be urging the Lakers to exploit the full potential of World Peace. Of course we understand that the Lakers have to consider what World Peace can do to help the team, but they should also be thinking of what the team can do for World Peace. We have reason to worry now, at the start of this new season, whether the team will truly stand up for World Peace, or whether it will only turn to World Peace on rare occasions.