While a retired number is typically associated with the player having been a great performer for that team, there is really no reason to expect that this should be so in every single instance. I think it is appropriate now and then for a team to bestow this honour for other reasons. For instance, Boston University has retired the number of hockey player Travis Roy, who suffered a paralysing spinal-cord injury mere seconds into his first shift on the ice. Also, I think it is great that the New Orleans Hornets have retired no. 7 for Pete Maravich, who is beloved locally, having played for LSU and the New Orleans Jazz, but who of course never played for the Hornets. Henry Aaron never "dominated" for the Brewers, but it is entirely appropriate that they have retired his no 44. (And the Mets really should have done likewise with Willie Mays's no. 24, which is unofficially retired, having been worn since Mays only by Rickey Henderson, and even then with significant controversy.) Then there are numbers retired for non-players, such as no. 5 retired for Carl Barger, a founding executive for the Florida Marlins who died before the club's first season. Number 5 was chosen because Barger's favourite player was Joe D. There is also the retired no. 26 (for "the 26th man") bestowed upon Gene Autry by the California Angels. And the Knicks have honoured Red Holtzman by retiring no. 613 (for his victory total). I am sure there are a few others like this. It is nice that there should be a few exceptions to the norm. With that said, however, I must admit that I do not like Major League Baseball's decision to retire no. 42 for all teams in honour of Jackie Robinson. I preferred it when individual players, such as Mo Vaughn and Butch Huskey, were free to make that statement themselves. It seems to me that prohibiting players from taking the number in Robinson's honour will actually lead to fewer people knowing about him. I can remember that, in almost every newspaper story I read about Vaughn and Huskey, it was mentioned that these guys wore no. 42 because of Robinson. In each of those cases, there were some kiddies reading that newspaper story who were encountering the name "Jackie Robinson" for the first time. I think that this is a more appropriate and more powerful means of keeping Robinson's legacy known than is removing the number entirely from circulation. Anyway, all of these cases -- even the one that I disagree with -- show that there can sometimes be a reason to retire a number other than the most usual reason, which is on-field greatness for that team.