MLB All-Time Hits Leaders (1871-2019). Beautiful visualization.

[Yavin4]

You see the impact of WWII and the Korean war as the leader board does not move in the 40s and 50s.

[NoRethugFriends]

1. Great! But the ending stinks. (nt)

[Buckeye_Democrat]

2. My parents drove me to a mall when I was a kid...

... because I wanted to meet George Foster. He was supposed to be there, but he couldn't make it for whatever reason.

So there was Pete Rose in his place, promoting a book about him. He was nice to the kids whose parents bought the hardcover book, but not to me and others who tried to express our appreciation of him after standing in line. He signed the piece of paper given to me by my parents before they did other things in the mall, at least, but the experience was so deflating to me (about 10 years old) that I tossed it in a trash can.

[NoRethugFriends]

6. Yup. He was always a jerk, and still is. (nt)

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

3. Rose may have the all-time hits record but

he has about 70 hits than Cobb yet has over 3000 more at-bats to get there.

Life time batting averages- Cobb .366, Rose .303. And Cobb, believe it or not , is in the all-time top 10 for RBIs.

Rose was an extremely versatile player in the field but his hit record is one of baseball's most overrated stats. Hank Aaron has a higher lifetime batting average than Rose.

[Yavin4]

4. Cobb did it in a segregated league.

So, he did not have to face the best baseball players of his time. Rose competed against the best baseball players of his time.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

5. I have no doubt if Cobb

had played in modern times like Rose, he still would excelled.

I don't think he would have hit .366 lifetime but he very well could have hit in the .330-.340 range like Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs.
Not saying Rose isn't an all-time great player; without the gambling issues, he's a no-brainer first ballot Hall-of-Famer.
Take a look at their stat lines across the board and tell me Cobb isn't the overall superior player.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Versatile, Yes

But, a master of none. He had limited range and was poor at the 4-6-3 double play. Didn't throw to his left well. He was just ok at 2nd.
His arm wasn't great for 3rd & once Perez mastered the position, the Reds couldn't wait to put him there. That was late 60s, I think.
He had very limited range in the outfield, though he was sure handed.
His arm was below average, so he ended up at 1st base later in his career. Range is less an issue and playing some 3rd base prepared him for scooping hard throws from the dirt.
But, we have known for years that the 2 places teams his their defensive weak links were LF & 1st base. He spent considerable time in both spots. Of course, when Foster came along (although he wasn't a great fielder, either) they had to put the 30 HR guy there.
He played a lot of positions, but he was a hitter, not a great fielder.

[Drum]

8. Great animation! n/t