Talk:Byung-Hyun Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Table removal

I removed the table. I don't quite see the point of it, it was half empty, and frankly, it was a waste of space. Doughboy 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

I've seen him referred to as "BK Kim" in sports articles. Why is that? "BH Kim" would be more understandable. -Phoenixrod 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurant

He's Korean but owns a Japanese restaurant?? that's weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kskk2 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 season and the victory in New York's historic collapse

Nevermind the fact that I'm a Mets fan, but seriously, Kim's start that Friday night had little to do with the Mets September collapse. He wasn't even great that night, Oliver Perez was just worse, which enabled Kim to get the win. The Mets still controlled their own destiny that Sunday anyway. Whoever wrote up the piece on the Mets collapse clearly peppered in a bit of his/her opinion along with the facts. In any case, is this a Wikipedia article about Kim or about the Mets? Someone please remove all this Mets historic collapse stuff, at least from this article, as if Kim was the sole reason the Mets blew it. --Qbizzle 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


If you are a Mets fan and embarrassed about the historic collapse, bear with it and don't try to destroy the historical record. This record has no opinion on it - just facts. Kim was literally at the center of this historic collapse (if the pitching mound of the Shea Stadium is not the center, then where is the center?) and where did this article say that Kim pitched "great?" He was simply effective enough to help his team win this game. As the record clearly reveals, the Mets had two more games to recover but they failed with Tom Glavine's miserable performance on the final day (this is also stated on the record). Someone (probably a Mets fan) who just completely erased the whole record on the historic significance of this game in which Kim collected a win should be even more embarrassed. This information on the New York Mets' historic collapse should be there to explain the historical significance of this game. If Mets fans continue to try to erase this legitimate historical record, they will be forever regarded as cowards who cannot face the historical truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.115.36 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you spell POV? :-) -Phoenixrod 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I deleted one whole paragraph about the Mets that I had nothing to do with Kim, but that entire sections still has serious issues. The wording doesn't even clarify what Kim's role was in beating the Mets, but from what I can gather there's no evidence that he played a particularly important role in that series.MashDownBabylon (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Like one person above said - and I agree - what is important is the historical significance of the three-day series between the Marlins and the Mets and the series-starter game in which Kim started. From a historical perspective, it does not matter how Kim performed in the series starter. The mere fact that Kim was involved in this series starter warrants the recording of the historical account of these three games. These two paragraphs have to be there to explain the historical significance. The facts in these two paragraphs are true facts. These valuable historical accounts should not be deleted. (And Kim did pretty well in this game, considering that he pitched 5+ innings with finger blisters on his right index and middle fingers, even though it was not his best start.) It will be hard for Mets fans to relive this memory but these are solid facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahMTUSA (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. The Mets lost to Kim in this game and eventually paid the consequence for handing Kim the starting-win decision in this game. Like David Wright said, if the Mets beat Kim in this game, the Mets may have avoided the historic collapse. This is why the historical accounts on the Mets' historic collapse should be here. If the things went opposite and the Mets beat Kim, avoided the collapse, and went all the way to win the World Series, baseball historians would not have missed that also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRailroad (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have trimmed much of the section down, including everything related to the Mets' collapse. The place to chronicle the collapse is at 2007 New York Mets season, and not here. Kim's involvement in the Mets' collapse was, at best, tangental. By your reasoning, every player who had a good outing against the Mets in the stretch run would need two (or more) paragraphs devoted to the Mets eventual elimination from playoff contention in their bios. That, however, is not how an encyclopedia works. It is sufficient to keep on topic and link to tangental information as needed. Please do not reintroduce this information before coming to a consensus, whether it be here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Byung-Hyun Kim (where the matter has also been addressed). If you have any specific questions, please contact me. caknuck ° has a nasty slice in his golf swing 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is way too much detail in this article. Game-by-game recaps are overkill. You can link to that stuff elsewhere if necessary. The notion that one game might have prevented a collapse is strictly fan POV stuff and doesn't belong. Even with the more reasonable size attained by Caknuck's trimming, it's still twice the size of the article on Christy Mathewson. Maybe I should write a paragraph about each of Mathewson's 373 career wins. That would make some interesting reading also. P.S. I've had discussions with Mets fans who say the team wasn't really that good and that the law of averages simply caught up to them. As it did to the Rockies, eventually, for another example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion to modify this:

2007 Season (drop the victory in NY's epic collapse)

On September 28, Kim collected his tenth win of the season against the Mets at Shea Stadium in New York City[40] and became the second South Korean pitcher after Chan Ho Park to win ten games in a Major League season.[41] This game dropped the Mets to the second place in the National League East Division for the first time since May 16, 2007. See 2007 Mets for more information on the Mets' epic collapse. In addition, this game helped Kim's former team Arizona Diamondbacks clinch a ticket to the postseason on the same night.[42]

I reversed caknuck's changes because it contained serious errors. I won't discuss it here further but I already told caknuck. WestArmyComm (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)WestArmyComm

[edit] Unnotable Info

There is no need to say "at Coors Field" or whatever field the event happened at after every single event in the article. Why the hell is that paragraph about a U.S. diplomat talking about Kim in this article?!?!? If Curt Schilling watched Super Bowl XLII and posted encouraging words on his blog and said he had high expectations for the Patriots next season, should that be in the article? NO! That is not noteworthy! Just because famous person 1 mentions the name of famous person 2 or comments on events the 2nd famous person did, does not mean famous person 1's comments should go in famous person 2's article.

I think this entire article should be just blanked and rewritten from stratch.--Jackal4 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave that section in. Hill's mention of Kim at the airport was a signal of a major shift in the U.S. diplomacy in South Korea at the field level. In the past, U.S. diplomats dealt with South Korean leaders but they rarely interacted with citizens in general. It was difficult to do that in the pre-internet era. With the advancement of the internet, these citizens' voices grew more and more influential in the U.S.-Korea relationship. The first George W. Bush administration's neocon hawkish stance against North Korea scared many South Koreans into believing that the United States may be contemplating a war in the Korean peninsula and they began to seriously distrust the United States. So at the time U.S. diplomats needed more friendly interactions with South Korean citizens and a little dose of sports diplomacy was a nice starter to send a friendly message to them publicly. That is why Hill mentioned about Kim at the airport and continued to say things about him as a part of his diplomatic efforts. You are right if Curt Schilling said some encouraging words to NE Pats for the SuperBowl XLII it won't gain much attention because his words won't carry any serious coded message. And you should mention what happened at what stadium. I mean, if you read a historical account on battles, don't you want to know where the battle took place?—Preceding unsigned comment added by WestArmyComm (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 February 2008
I think that has very little to do with Kim and a lot more to do with U.S. and South Korean relations. I think it would make more sense to omit it from Kim's article and put it in an article about the U.S. and South Korean relations, like this one.--Jackal4 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pulling out the foreign relations of South Korea article.  :-) I agree that this section on Hill and Kim can be added to the "foreign relations of South Korea" article. But the content of this article is more extensive and in-depth than this section here. Hill did much more than just talking about Kim to approach South Korean citizens during those challenging times. I think there has to be more researches done to add this section - along with other things U.S. diplomats in Seoul did at the time to interact with South Korean citizens - to the "foreign relations of South Korea" article. And it will take time. And since Kim's name was mentioned by Hill publicly as a part of his diplomatic efforts, I do think this section has a legit place here and I am fine with it. It is a part of Kim's history too. Maybe what can be done, if you insist moving it, is that we leave it here now but eventually move it to the "foreign relations of South Korea" article with more information on the U.S. diplomatic efforts at the time and write about it little bit here and put here a link to the "foreign relations of South Korea" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestArmyComm (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved a substantial portion of this part to South Korea-United States relations and put a link. WestArmyComm (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)WestArmyComm

[edit] Infobox timeline

Please stop bunching kim's separate stints with the same team together. It was agreed upon here in topic #36 Baseball player infoboxes that the list of teams should be in chronological order. Jackal4 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)