Retiring Jordan's Number?

I was fiddling around on ESPN.com this evening, and came across a question on the SportsNation polls that was asking whether or not the NBA should retire Michael Jordan's famous #23. I imagine the question was sparked by the story that LeBron James filed paperwork to change his number (currently #23) next season.

Now, I think that Jordan was a heckuva player. He is definitely one of the best to have played in the NBA... ever. However, I don't think we should go out of our way to make him so sacred in the temple of basketball. I think retiring a number from the game entirely is something that should not be taken lightly. It should be reserved for players that have transcended the game in a major, sociologically and culturally significant way. Simply being perceived as the best is not enough.

To my knowledge only one number has been permanently retired in the major sports - Jackie Robinson's #42 was retired by Major League Baseball a few years ago. That was a person who made an impact that goes far beyond the game itself. When Katie and I went to Cooperstown in 2007, one of the displays that was the most awe-inspiring was about Robinson. He paved the way for so many of the game's best players, and wasn't too bad of a player himself.

Many people will argue that Babe Ruth, or Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays (and down the road, Albert Pujols) are the best players in the game. And realistically, you can make a case for all three of those guys. However, none of their numbers have been retired throughout the whole game.

So, essentially, what I'm saying here is - don't do it, NBA. Don't even consider it. Jordan was indeed one of the games greatest players, but how do you then justify retiring his number and leaving out other greats such as Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell, or fill in the blank with your best player of all time. Jackie Robinson made a difference in American culture, not just in baseball. Michael Jordan is no Jackie Robinson.