The nice thing about the Hall of Fame voting, at least the regular BBWAA voting, is that every voter has their own opinion of what makes a Hall of Famer. Certainly many of them consider more modern measures like WAR than in the past; they simply didn't have those measures before. But most Hall of Famers elected long ago have pretty high WAR totals.
Undoubtedly many voters in the past highly considered counting stats, and awards once MVPs and then Cy Youngs were awarded. They also considered postseason performance. I think that gets to the definition of "fame." Getting on the leaderboards makes you more famous, and good fielders usually aren't that famous unless they're also good hitters, or super elite (e.g., Ozzie Smith). I think a player is more famous by being really good at one thing (e.g., Tony Gwynn)..
I think that, among non-tainted players who have been eligible to be elected, those with highest WAR who are not in the Hall are Curt Schilling (I guess he could be considered "tainted"), 1880s pitcher Jim McCormick (never heard of him before, so I guess he isn't famous), old time shortstop Bill Dahlen, who might deserve induction but hit only .272, Lou Whitaker, and Bobby Grich. The last two are as good as Alan Trammell, but I was around for their entire careers, and they weren't as famous.
If Schwarber gets to 500 homers and close to 50 WAR, I still don't think he'll be elected. A few more 50 HR seasons might make him famous enough, but I suspect it won't be enough.
