Riddled with typos and inconsistent grammar (some dates are 21st while are just 21; sometimes Oxford comma is used while other times not) and the most conservative use of commas I’ve seen from a book in this century, I feel like the title of the book should’ve been 1901: A Year In Baseball. Only the first two or three chapters deal with any real warring. The rest is just a recap of the season in both leagues and about players being traded or defecting. But perhaps my biggest issue is the source material. 99% of the sources are either Sporting News or Sporting Life, both I believe weekly news from the times. But it makes it feel biased to general news instead of delving into more local papers like The New York Times or The Pittsburg Press. The book is just a summation of 1901 in articles from two sources and lacks a narrative. I would rather it went through 1903 and focused on the magnates more than the players. And the warring leagues. That would’ve been a unique take I haven’t seen. I’ve read lots about the National League and was looking forward to learning about Ban Johnson and the American League and while it’s in here, it just feels so generally sourced.
Zarley does a good job recapping a very pivotal year in the evolution of professional baseball in 1901. Clearly the work is heavily researched. I would have like a short epilogue on what became of a few of the folks but then again, a follow up book could be in the works.