What You Talk About When You Talk About Live Chats

One of the questions I think FanGraphs is always asking, whether implicitly or explicitly, is “How can we make baseball writing better?” Nor is this a quality native only to the present site. Indeed, better blogs everywhere are interested in finding creative solutions to this problem. Unconstrained by considerations such as physical space or “making any money, whatsoever,” we, the blogerati, are given space to experiment. If we fail, we fail. “Big whoop,” as my grandmother would say. If we succeed, eureka!, the face of baseballing journalism is forever changed.

Those are pretty sweet terms under which to work.

A site like Deadspin, for example — however one feels about its frequent sojourns into the immodest — has distinguished itself by exploring the advantages that electronic media have over print media. (The pictures of Greg Oden freaking on hot coeds certainly haven’t hurt, either.) The internet is full of other such examples, where a group or individual, having the will/way, provides content that traditional media have neglected. (The internet is also full, it should be said, of people freaking on hot coeds.)

One of the forms native to the interweb is the live chat, and it’s this form that found its way to these electronic pages for Opening Day. The event compelled this author to ask a couple, very basic, questions about the chat form.

Here they are.

What’s the point of a live chat?
Before we can answer this question, we have to consider the different types of chat that exist. So far as I can see — and, like Wikipedia, I’m never, ever wrong — so far as I can see, there are two kinds of chats: the kind that covers a live game (like the one later today over at Baseball America) and the kind that center upon a baseballing expert or some other Person of Interest, whether it be your Keith Laws (sorry, subscriber only) or your Dirk Hayhursts.

In the case of a chat that coincides with a live game or games, there are two potential uses for such a thing. In one case, a reader might follow the chat to accompany the game in question; in another, he might do so to follow the game. The latter instance will be familiar to those readers who “have jobs.” Fremulon Insurance can block the MLB homepage and Yahoo! Sports, but does their firewall exclude River Ave Blues? Maybe, but it’s less likely.

In either case where a live game is involved, the chat allows a reader to experience the game with a like-minded community. Critics might scoff at such a notion and suggest that it’s hardly fair to call a “community” a group of faceless individuals congregating under cover of pseudonyms and avatars. This is undoubtedly true for some people. For others, it’s not impossible to imagine actually developing some borderline-meaningful relationships via the internet. Consider: when I first met — in the ornate and expensively decorated lobby of Phoenix’s Crowne Plaza Hotel — when I first met Dave Cameron and Jack Moore and Dave Allen and everyone else, it didn’t feel like I was meeting strangers. I knew from his writing that Dave Allen would speak exclusively in binary code; I knew from his writing that Dave Cameron would hate my favorite team. No, we’d never met in person before. Still, I certainly felt as though I knew something about these guys.

The Expert Chat is a slightly different beast. Most often, readers participate in these because it allows them to interface directly with a person who has some kind of specialized knowledge. Sometimes, as in the case of Keith Law, that special knowledge is in the area of prospect mavenry. In other instances — which I will link to slyly — the Person of Interest holds a degree in Crazy.

What makes for a quality chat?
I have rarely used the term “trial by fire,” but that seems like a fair way of describing the way in which I became intimate with the chat form.

It should be added that this is wholly my fault.

A couple days before our Opening Day chat, my sworn enemy Dave Cameron asked — on account of I obviously don’t have a job — he asked if I would spend some time moderating said chat. “How hard could that be?” was my basic reaction. This has a lot to do with the fact that I’m a big-time numbnuts.

Well, as it turns out, moderating isn’t so easy. You’ve got to consider your personnel (Mitchel Lichtman? Dan Szymborski? Jonah Keri?) and their various areas of expertise (UZR, ZiPS, and Canada, respectively). I failed miserably at first, although I think maybe I got better along the way. Furthermore, the experience allowed me to reflect upon what might be necessary for a good chat situation.

If pressed, I’d say there are three traits to a quality chat. If further pressed, I’d say these are they:

1. Good Questions
At first glance, this might seem entirely the province of the commentariat — and it’s true, if readers aren’t asking good questions, then good answers will be hard to come by* — but the moderator, whoever he may be, is also an important factor.

*I’m reminded of a quote by Georg Lichtenberg (of the eponymous Figure): “A book is a mirror: If an ass peers into it, you can’t expect an apostle to look out.”

Instead of asking Keith Law, “Hey, whaddaya think about Aroldis Chapman?” the question we ask him should be “What current Major Leaguer would serve as a good comp of Chapman and why?” Or: “How do you foresee the Reds — and Dusty Baker, specifically — handling Chapman?” In other words, yes, Keith Law is a smart guy, but throw the guy a bone. The more specific the question we ask him, the more interesting his response. I guarantee it!

Again, the commentariat is responsible for providing the raw material here, but the moderator can improve the quality of questions merely by selecting the best ones. This, in turn, encourages other commenters to become the smartest versions of themselves. There is undoubtedly a thrill when one’s question is selected. By choosing only the more reasonably toned, more nuanced questions — by incentivizing intelligence — the line of questioning improves.

2. A Committed Author
I don’t know really know how one could prove such a thing, and yet I’m almost positive that it’s the case: if the author cares about both reaching out to, and rubbing elbows with, the wide readership, then the chat will benefit for it. This is probably something one could measure, like by sentence variation or diction. But notice I say “one” could measure it — not “I” could.

In any case, let’s agree: the commitment of the author or authors in question is of vital importance. If they’re all, “Ah, man, I’d so much rather be freaking on hot coeds, well, it’ll be apparent to the reader.”

3. Inspired Tangents
I am almost definitely more bullish on this front than other people. But I’ll repeat now what I’ve shouted to the skies before: I watch, think about, and follow baseball exclusively for my enjoyment. If I’m thinking about Chris Davis’s WAR, it’s to further my enjoyment. If I make public declarations about the ace-like season upon which Colby Lewis is about to embark, it’s to further my enjoyment. These considerations have no other bearing on my life.

As such, the chat itself should exist for enjoyment first. Of course, in the Expert Chat, this might not necessarily be the case. Very often, the point of such exercises is, like I say, to interface directly with the Person of Interest. So be it. But in those instances when the chat coincides with a live game — and certainly when the chat involves more than one author (as did the Opening Day chat here) — enjoyment must be a primary concern.

Here I’d particularly like to recognize Dan Szymborski’s contribution to our Opening Day chat. Not only did Dan — whom you’ll know as the Baby Daddy of ZiPS — not only did he log multiple hours across multiple shifts, but he embraced the spirit of playfulness that is necessary to the success of such an enterprise. In so doing, he allowed his fellow chatters and the commentariat to play along.

One particular sequence stands out, and I’ve reproduced it below. Note that I’ve edited out other comments as were extraneous to this particular narrative line. Note also that this passage blurs the line between genius and madness.

__ __ __

The following occurred between 11:14 and 11:23 pm on Opening Day, after about 14 hours of live chatting.

In this particular case, commenter Torin — again, after 14 hours of this — commenter Torin asked, “What is FanGraphs?”

This is what ensued.

[Comment From Torin:]
What is FanGraphs

Dan Szymborski:
Torin, we graph fans from leading fan manfacturers for air flow, noise level, and extra features. This year’s vornados look awesome, but never count out hunter

Zach Sanders:
Dan, I think Lasko and Seville could be in for a breakout year.

Dan Szymborski:
I don’t like the Laskos at all. They use metal grating and tend to overheat.

[Comment From Mark R:]
Have you looked into graphing fans for industrial applications?

Zach Sanders:
My internal studies show that Lasko is a superior brand.

Dan Szymborski:
They don’t have the airflow granularity of Vornado

Dan Szymborski:
get your head out of the statbook and sit in front of a fan.

[Comment From SYH:]
Just down the street from me is this great store that always makes me laugh: Dan’s Fan City

[Comment From SYH:]
It’s more of a village, really.

Carson Cistulli:
SYH: Commenting on his own comments!

[Comment From Sean:]
I’ve heard you can’t always rely on advanced metrics with Fans, sometimes you need to sit in front of one in person, scouting baby!

Dan Szymborski:
There are always new fans and new fan technology. I’m excited about these virtual fans which send impulses to your nerves telling you that you’ve had air blowed on you rather than you actually having air blown on you.

David Appelman:
It really depends how long the fan has been on the market.

David Appelman:
You might want to scout a brand new fan, but you pretty much know what you’re going to get with the older fans.

Zach Sanders:
My WAR (Wind Above Replacement) shows that Lasko is worth .01 cent a WIN. Get that from your scouting!

[Comment From Mark R:]
So the secret comes out! Dan’s a licensed Vornado dealer. Quel scandale!

Zach Sanders:
.01 cent a wind, that is

Dan Szymborski:
I simulated 1,000 summers and Vornado keeps me the coolest. Except air conditioning, but we’re talking fans.

[Comment From Newcomer:]
Paper fans are greatly underrated. Especially in Super Smash Brothers.

[Comment From Torin:]
Why does it say FanGraphs Opening Day 2010?

[Comment From Newcomer:]
The best way to judge them comes down to scouting plus statistics. Put the data on paper, put the paper in front of the fan, and see which one blows into your face.

[Comment From Sean:]
Surely Range Factor is paramount for fans, i need to know the wind can get to me from a distance

Dan Szymborski:
We are federally licensed fan distributors and do background checks on all purchasers. We don’t want people using fans to blow over carefully arranged stacks of written manuscripts of others, for instance. Fans don’t blow people, peop…never mind.