Just want to echo this response:
If we are doing a good job of the arguments, the voters don't necessarily need to have
that much expertise in the era to start the project. They need to know some really basic fundamentals* of the era, in order to have a framework for comparing players to each other. But they don't need to have any pre-conceived ideas of how the players stack up to each other... it's almost better if they don't, because we should be breaking new ground rather than reinforcing old assumptions.
I assume this is what
@seventieslord means by Round 2 voters being a priority. We have enough Round 1 list-makers to get us started, but the real progress happens during the debates. As long as a voter has enough fundamental knowledge* to follow the debates, they're on solid ground.
* Thinking about what constitutes "basic knowledge" in this project:
- Understanding generally that the pre-consolidation era involved multiple top-tier leagues operating at the same time, so we can't take "3rd best scorer in the NHL" at face value to mean "3rd best scorer in the world". We have to compare across leagues.
- Understanding generally that in the early days, not all of the best players were professionals. So, some non-top-tier leagues are going to be relevant in this project, and not all players will have the amateur-to-pro career arc that we expect in the modern era.
- An understanding that the Stanley Cup was determined by challenges, not tournaments, so the relevance of repeatedly winning (or repeatedly losing, or never winning) a Stanley Cup was slightly different than it is today.
- A broad knowledge of how the rules changed from the 1880s to the 1920s: the use of the Rover position, evolving ideas of offside, evolving usage of forward passing, evolving rules for the goalies. Again, just a broad knowledge... specific details will be noted in the arguments, so no need to already have them in your head.
- A general understanding that because of all the above, stats can vary widely between players who performed at the same level.
If you have finished reading those bullet points, you now have the general understanding that you need in order to participate. No need to be an expert, just be prepared to hear these topics talked about and you're good to go.
It might not be a bad idea, perhaps in the discussion thread that starts the project, to develop some sort of "primer" for the participants who feel less prepared for a deep dive on this topic. Just a basic overview of which leagues are relevant, how the rules changed over time, etc.
