In 1961, MLB switched from 154-game schedule to a 162-game schedule. I started this post because I was curious to see whether it was easier to get 200 hits with the longer schedule.
For starters, I wanted to calculate the cumulative batting averages for all of MLB for those two eras. To distinguish, I'm calling 1901-1961 the "154 era" meaning 154-game seasons (although I don't think they played 154 in the very early 1900s) and 1961-present the "162 era." From the season-to-season totals pages, we can get all the data and then use Excel to calculate totals.
Ok, so hold your breath for some big numbers. In the 154 era (1901 to 1950) there were a total of 1,336,891 hits in 5,037,614 at-bats, for a cumulative batting average of .265. In the 162 era (1961 to present) there were a total of 1,694,459 hits in 6,530,478 at-bats, for a cumulative batting average of .259.
Now, 6 points of batting average isn't much difference, although with more than 5 million at-bats in each era, it's certainly a real and statistically significant difference. Still, over the course of 600 at bats, a 6 point difference is only a matter of 3 more hits.
As far as players getting at least 200 hits in a season, it's been done 266 times in the 154 era but just 197 times in the 162 era.
It's pretty clear, then, that getting 200 hits was more common in the 154-era than in the present era. Sure, the 154 era covers 60 seasons while the 162 era covers just 47 seasons. But, there are so many more teams and players now that the percentage of players getting 200-hit seasons was significantly higher in the 154 era.
By the way, adding up the numbers for all the 200+ hit seasons yields cumulative batting averages of .349 (56487 for 161770) for the 154 era and .326 (41195 for 126087) for the 162 era.