Obviously they want some metric of success and cultural impact, and hits are one way to do that. But would King Crimson have been a better band if they had hits? No they wouldn’t. Were Yes and Genesis better bands once they had hits? No. if Yes and Genesis both broke up in 1980 would they have been excluded from the hall? even though that was after their most groundbreaking influential eras had already occurred. It’s possible, likely even. but it doesnt take a genius to understand that hit singles do not equal quality music or artistic significance, especially in certain subgenres of music.

Some bands are even dragged down by their biggest hit. Radiohead with “Creep” are a prime example of this (though of course they had other hits and were still commercially successful regardless of that song). The Grateful Dead getting a hit with “Touch of Grey” was a very awkward time for the band since after that tons of people would show up to their shows only wanting to hear that song not knowing anything else about them. Some people say Phish don’t have any hits as if that’s a bad thing which kept them out of the hall this time, but it’s one of the best things about them, no constant demands to play the same song all the time or dumb people who only know them for one song. At their shows people often shout out requests and it’s never the same song but always something different, to have your entire catalog of material be more or less equally appreciated like that would be a dream for most artists.