Great question, and short answer: Yes. We're seeing that evolve already. Look at the discussion about Tim Raines. Thankfully he is in the Hall of Fame. I took great delight in being able to vote for him, as I have for Helton, as I will for Votto, and as I did this past year for Abreu because this is the kind of research I ran into with him, too.
Tony Gywnn had 3,141 hits. He's a shoo-in for the Hall. Three thousand hits!
Include his walks and hit by pitches, and he reached base 3,955 times. That is essentially a big part of the job of a hitter -- to get on base, or, put another way, not make outs.
Raines had "only" 2,605 hits. Not exactly a shoo-in for the Hall. Not sexy like 3K.
Include his walks and hit by pitches, and he reached base 3,977 times. He did his job of not making outs as well as Gwynn did. (Raines had 127 more plate appearances, to note.)
There is an evolution of how voters look at the numbers and that has meant increasingly using stats like OPS to frame arguments, to open doors and windows to new candidates or overlooked candidates. And then comes the mix of stats used. Durability is something to take into account. Bulk numbers matter because having a long career is part of having a great career.
I don't buy into the one-stat argument.
We have a galaxy of stats available to us, why not use all of them? We can use counting stats to understand the length and big-box part of a career, and then the rate stats to look how excellent a player was compared across time. The more information the better, and I think your research illustrated how OPS (and other stats) are shaping the modern voting trends.