Easy to maintain and easy to repair has value, also. If the Hellcat's simplicity allows it to be repaired and serviced quickly, it can sortie more often than a more complex fighter. Assuming the pilot can keep bringing it back, it can contribute more combat time than a trickier, more high-maintenance fighter. This also might be like the USN's F-18's, which are multirole fighters (having replaced both the F-14 and the A-6) and by all accounts, not particularly formidable air superiority craft. Ruggedness and ease of maintenance are very desirable attributes for carrier aircraft, and I've heard that the F-18 can be turned around and relaunched faster than a lot of other fighters. Suppose, for the sake of argument (unsubtantiated) that a Hellcat can sortie three times in a day while an Arrow can only manage two; all else being equal, the Hellcats can keep a more robust CAP umbrella up around the fleet, even if the pilots sitting in the cockpit would rather by flying Arrows.
Good ACM and teamwork can also play up the Hellcat's strengths. IIRC, the USN F4F Wildcat was clumsier but more rugged than the IJN Zero. While a Wildcat was a poor match for a Zero in a one-on-one dogfight, ACM's like the Thatch Weave forced Zeroes to expose themselves to wingman fire any time they managed to get on a Wildcat's six. Although it was an uncomfortable position for the Wildcats to be in, it at least forced the Zeroes to give up their comparative advantage in speed an maneuverability (which happens when you're tailing a target) and expose their vulnerabilities (poor armor). Thatch Weave is probably dicier when you're outnumbered 2 to 1, though.
All are possibilities. The Hellcat has to have some redeeming features, and logistical qualities are strategically important too.