I may suggest you to follow some lessons at the Naval academy for naval gunnery and gunnery pracitces. All repsected naval instructors and Naval historians agree on the mere fact that the higher rate of fire is the way to overcome a theoretical one hit, one kill by a larger gun. Simply said: "If you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick" The Pacific showed the 8 inch slower rate of fire gun was a major flaw in the brawling in the Solomons, as it was too cumbersome and slow in rate of fire to deal with short range threats. At Barentzsea, Lutzow fought the theoretically inferior 6 inch gunners HMS Sheffield and HMS Jamaica, scoring no hits on them, while her consort Hipper was critically damaged by these so called inferior light cruisers.
In other words, your statement is way off. Reality showed a different outcome in any engagement dealing with the heavily armed cruiser, vs a lighter armed one. There is no record of any engamement where the bigger gunned ship came out victorious, as Graf Spee was unable to defend herself against Harwoods cruisers, Lutzow equally impotent against Burnet's cruisers and in the Pacific the tide turned when the Clevelands came in service, replacing the heavy cruisers in the surface action groups to combat with guns against the Japanese.
Here the statement is: "bigger is not better". Other factors are much more important in warfare at sea.