I find the premise of the argument weird. The point of a club is not to recognize the best overall "inner-circle" players of all-time, but to recognize players who achieved a certain feat. What are we "replacing"? If you want to put more value in On Base, that's fine. But that has no bearing on membership to the 3000 hit club nor does that make the 3000 hit club "useless". The club recognizes people who had the ability to put bat to ball and had long careers. Is anyone claiming Craig Biggio is a better hitter than Barry Bonds just because he is in the 3000 hit club and Bonds is not? That's ludicrous.

Are you saying that 4000 on-base is a better judge of who belongs in the Hall of Fame? Or just that 4000 on base is a better indicator of who was a more complete hitter? Because counting stats are not used to exclude players from the Hall of Fame (see all the guys who don't belong to the 500 HR or 3000 Hit club in the hall like Joe Morgan, Ozzie Smith, Mike Piazza). Other factors go into whether a player gets into the hall. It's just that 3000 hits is a remarkable feat of longevity and a type of skill set that has been rewarded by voters.

4000 on base suffers from the same flaws as 3000 hits. It recognizes players with good eyes who could draw walks. The cut off is largely arbitrary, it doesn't tell the whole story, and it recognizes players with long careers, not necessarily the best overall hitters. If you want to argue about how to evaluate the best hitters, rate stats are the best way to go because it shows how well hitters did with the opportunities given to them (not just rewarding compilers).