Why attacking the US fleet at sea might have served Japan better

Would Japan have done better to attack the Philippines and wait for the US Pacific Fleet instead of striking Pearl Harbor?

Potentially, because ships destroyed at sea are harder to recover and take their trained crews with them, unlike many vessels sunk in harbour.

Ships sunk in a harbour can often be recovered, as Taranto and Pearl Harbor demonstrated. Destroying American battleships at sea would remove hulls and trained crews permanently and impose a deeper national shock, even though US industry could eventually replace them. Taranto's narrower target set and Italian industrial weakness made temporary damage more strategically useful to Britain. Industrial replacement could eventually recover hull numbers, but trained crews would take longer to replace.