Olney vs. Verducci

In the same breath, "The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty" was a fantastic book. One of the best baseball books I've read.

 

Definitely Buster Olney.

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Neither knows more about baseball than Bill Conlin.

 

Big fan of both. They're very different in a lot of ways but both excellent at what they do.

 

Please. That's just ridiculous. Both know far more about current baseball than Conlin and both know the game better.

Conlin might know some old stories about Pete Rose better because he's old but that's the extent of it. Bet you think Hal Bodley is well-informed, too.

 

Having worked with and been around all four, I'll stand by my original statement. I think the world of all four but for my taste, I prefer Conlin and Bodley.

 

Of course you have :.

 

Are you senile, too? Those guys might have been "cutting edge" back in '63 but neither of them is relevant in baseball these days.

 

Hardly senile. Conlin and McCoy know more about the game than Olney and Verducci. The difference is that Olney and Verducci are young enough that they can pal around the players. That's the only difference. Conlin and McCoy have seen more baseball than Olney and Verducci can dream about.
Again, it's preference. I like all four, I just prefer Conlin and McCoy. What's wrong with that?

 

Where does Murray Chass fit into this discussion? How about Peter Gammons?

 

First off, it's an opinion, not a thesis.
Secondly, It's a matter of taste. Some like Olney. Some like Verducci.
All the journalists named are good reads. If you want to go solely on style of writing, I give the edge to Verducci. But again, we're talking about preference.
As far as seeing more games, there's no question, Conlin, McCoy, Chass and Gammons have seen more. They're older so its pretty much a given they've covered more games than Olney and Verducci.