Ferdinand Cesarano

Okay....? Tragic untimely death notwithstanding, I still don't think his number should be retired by a team he didn't even play for. Syracuse, definitely, but not Cleveland.

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.

Deion Sanders as a...

Sorry, but I have to object right here. Deion Sanders doesn't really qualify, because he is not overwhelmingly associated with any one uniform. Even if seeing him in a Ravens uni feels a little unfamiliar, it cannot possibly impress as "wrong" in the same way that the sight of Cal Ripken in a non-Orioles jersey does.

Jim Brown with an LA Raiders shirt on (though he never played for them...):

Here is Jim Brown in a full LA Raiders uniform on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1983:

For the kiddies who might not remember this, Jim Brown was seriously considering a comeback in 1983, when he was 47, and the rumour was that Al Davis was going to give him a chance.

(Brown never did go to any Raider training camp. But, if he had, it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened with the no. 32 jersey, which was worn by Marcus Allen. My guess: Allen, who is a bit more humble than Mr. Brown, would have ceded the jersey and worn a different number.)

By the way, that was not the only Sports Illustrated cover which showed a football great in a uniform of a team he never played for.

This was right before the never-to-be-played 1986 USFL season, which was intended to be the first one played in the fall. Jim Kelly had played for the Houston Gamblers, which merged with the New Jersey Generals. The stage was thus set for a QB battle between Kelly and the incumbent Doug Flutie (which Flutie, by virtue of his magical qualities, would surely have won).

But, a few weeks later, the USFL went out of business, through no fault of its own (all fault lying with the goofball judge who failed to correctly instruct the jury), and so we never got to see Jim Kelly in this uniform. (In this uniform standing on the sidelines. Watching Flutie play.)

The Lindros shot reminded me of this:

Another similar case:

Sometimes a baseball player who is known for only one team becomes a coach with another team. This can make for some weird-looking pictures, as Gothamite showed several pages back with his Ruth-Dodgers shot.

Note that a player's becoming a coach for a team that he otherwise would not have been associated with is different from his becoming a manager , simply because we see the managers much more, and remember them better. So, for example, while Ted Williams in a Senators uni is indeed a bit askew, we have all seen images of it enough times to get used to it.

But coaches are another story.

Joe D. as an A's coach in 1968 or 1969, with Reggie Jackson

Yogi as an Astros coach, c. 1986 (With adjustable caps? Maybe spring training?)

Willie Stargell as a Braves coach, c.1988, with Dale Murphy

Luke Appling as a Braves coach, c.1986, also with Dale Murphy

Bob Gibson as a Met coach, 1981

And soon there will be another addition to this list, once we are subjected to the ridiculous sight of Don Mattingly in a Dodger uniform.

First of all, some of these "wrong" uniforms are actually the right uniforms. To a New Yorker from the 70s, the sights of Rick Barry with the Nets, Pele with the Cosmos, and, most especially, Willie Mays with the Mets all look exactly as they ought to.

Secondly, they forgot this one: