I pretty much agree w/ this. I usually look for the one that gives the most logical explanation, and go w/ that.
A case in point - the Yadava fratricide. In SB, it's described as the Yadavas suddenly randomly killing each other, like Anirudh vs Satyaki, and so on. In the Mahabharata, by contrast, it gives a pretty logical flow to things. All the Yadavas, after years of prohibition, were pretty drunk, and Satyaki reminded everybody of Kritavarma's role in massacring the Pandava army @ night (along w/ Ashwatthama & Kripa). Kritavarma then pointed out the example of Bhurishrava, Satyaki then reminded him of the murder of Satrajit and after a while, tempers surfaced, w/ everyone picking the people they normally supported. Then suddenly Satyaki drew his sword & slew Kritavarma, and the Andhakas started attacking him. Pradhyumna got in to save him, but both Satyaki & Pradhyumna was killed. Krishna got upset and plucked some of that grass to become a mace, and the other Yadavas followed and started fighting w/ each other until all were dead.
So this Mausala Parva explanation certainly makes more sense to me than what's in SB. As for the end of the Pandavas, I like the explanation in SB more, where Arjun & Bhima simply follow Krishna to Vaikuntha, as opposed to dropping dead while accompanying Yudhisthir. However, the latter sounds more credible to me - the 2 of them couldn't abandon Yudhisthir for Krishna, unless it was the case that Yudhisthir too decided to take that route.