As sports fans, we like our history uncomplicated. We like underdogs. We like happy endings. We don’t like any negativity sprinkled into a result. For example, how many diehard New York Yankees fans would be glad for a win if shortstop Derek Jeter and first baseman Mark Teixieieiiieeieieeieeira were both lost for the year? They wouldn’t. Fans like simple, positive results, and that same truth applies to the legacies of our favorite sports stars as they contemplate retirement. It’s clear that fans think about a player’s career differently depending on how they go about retiring. I have two examples.
First, let’s look at Loyal Homer’s Michael Jordan example. Here’s a legend that had a see-saw battle with retirement, first retiring from basketball on the heels of winning three consecutive NBA titles. Now, this wasn’t a Seinfeldian “we can accomplish nothing more let’s get out while we’re on top” type retirement. No, October 6, 1993 was about Jordan wanting to play professional baseball (apparently only in the minors, thanks to his robust .202 batting average). How do you I remember the exact date? Because my English class stopped what we were doing, and at the behest of the instructor, watched the breaking news press conference live in the middle of the day (thanks, Mrs. Gessler). The second time he retired it was about a situation with management that he was unable to resolve. The THIRD time he retired was about being done playing basketball. I agree with Loyal Homer that Jordan’s statistics with the Wizards weren’t really that bad, and those stats don’t change how we think about Jordan on the court. But, it’s impossible to dismiss these brief retiring stints from Jordan’s history. Moreover, it’s impossible not to think about what MIGHT have been. How much farther out of reach would some of his league-leading stats be if he played each season consecutively? So, did the way Jordan retired affect how we think about his career? Of course.
For the second example, let’s examine our perpetually topical friend, Brett Favre. The first time Favre retired from the Green Bay Packers he was “mentally tired.” The second time he “retired” he decided to skip the tear-filled press conference and just say it from his house in Mississippi. Now he’s contemplating coming out of retirement again, just so he can retire a third time. (Interestingly, Favre’s retirement saga is very similar to his career as a player, with many questioning his decision-making while he was still able to muscle his way in to whatever situation he wanted.) To get some perspective from the source, I placed a call to sports writer Tyler Cleveland of the Hattiesburg American in Mississippi. Cleveland told me that the first time Favre was contemplating ending his retirement his droves of fans in Mississippi were thrilled at the prospect of continuing to watch him play. According to Cleveland, a “vast majority” of people wanted to see him play. Now the feeling from the locals is different. Cleveland puts the sentiment from the diehard local fans Favre has always had in his corner at 50-50. That’s a substantial difference. Has the way Favre is approaching retirement affected how fans think about his legacy and his career? Yep.
This back and forth about retirement remains newsworthy for years to come in part because it can impact the decision-making of their former(ish) organization, too. The longer a player contemplates retirement, the bigger the void in the organization, and the harder it is to recover. The player’s legacy lives in infamy within the organization they decide to leave(ish).
For a retiring player to avoid negatively impacting their legacy they must make the decision to leave the sport in private, publically announce it after they’re certain (but not at a huge worldwide press conference), and be disciplined about sticking to it. It’s not like a player has to quit cold-turkey. Look at the revolving door of ex-players who are cast as an “analyst” or talking head on TV? It seems to me that any respectable player (or Trent Dilfer) that wants a job in TV can get one. There’s always the prospect of coaching, too.
Going back and forth about retiring is human. It’s natural. It doesn’t completely destroy a legacy, either. But, does indecision impact how a career is thought about? Sure. Indecision about playing or retiring is an unavoidable footnote that gets branded onto a player’s history – and a fan’s memory – for all eternity.
Read Loyal Homer and the debate intro.
