Why do people put such a value on HR's, hits and wins? Everyone thinks that if you have 500 hr's, 3,000 hits?

and 300 wins, you will be a lock for the Hall of Fame. Well, I hate to break it to you people, but we are now in 2010, where Sabermetrics are the new barometer of greatness. Just look at Felix Hernandez this season with the M's, 13-12, but he won the CY Young, because of a great ERA and many other new age stats. I can't believe that I posted a question earlier about Fred McGriff, and if he will make it to the Hall of Fame or not, and someone said, "well, he didn't hit 500 hrs, and didn't get to that milestone, so, I would have to say, NO" are you kidding me or what? true, fred "only" hit 493 hr's, but he was super-dominant. He was the man. And had over 1,500 rbi's in his career. But this question isn't about Fred McGriff. It's about if the sports writers and Hall of Fame voters will start to vote with Sabermetrics on their minds, instead of the archaic "milestones" on their minds, of 300, 500 and 3,000?