I'm surprised at how many people are strictly judging Hall of Fame worthiness on career totals. I'm not saying Panarin has done enough so far to get in, but there's a lot more to evaluating a player and his place in history than the bottom of a column on hockeydb.
There can be 2 differents conversation at the same time.
Should Panarin be an inductee in the hall vs trying to predict if he will be ?
Historically Winning and totals influence voters a lot, you just give examples in your own text.
Panarin certainly has the career start, all-star finish (is there any 3 time All-star selected to not end up in the Hall ? Leclair, Naslund seem the only 2 after a very quick look) to end up being in the HOF, but knowing voters, compiling or winning will probably be required (both things he could very well do, but a late start in the nhl and the HOF not caring for the KHL put him behind a bit).
Mike Green had 2 first team all star early and will not get into the Hall, maybe Huberdeau will miss, Heatley had a 9-4-4, 6-5-2-8-9-8 in top 10 goals, 2 all-star teams, disastrous turning of 30 and will probably miss (Lecavalier, there a list of could have been in the hall have they aged better, having good enough peak for it and will not).
Naslund was first team all star 3 year in a row, second place Hart finish, Pearson, 2-2-4, a bit of a legendary junior career, are we certain he will be in the Hall ? Would not bet money on it. Naslund (or Leclair) that start to be elite earlier, age well and compile 1150pts-500 goals with that prime, much more likely.