First of all, in all of my experience (in pure mathematics), when evaluating candidates there is no distinction made between accepted papers and published papers. So I will speak about preprints versus accepted papers.
In all normal circumstances, having manuscript X as an accepted paper is strictly preferable to having X as an arxiv preprint. (What would be an abnormal circumstance? What I can come up with at the moment is: X is published in a shady journal, or X is published in a journal that is legitimate but of much lower quality than anyone would expect X to be published in. These are edge cases...)
So let us suppose that you have accepted papers X and Y and arxiv preprint Z. I think we can agree that the hypothetical candidate who has accepted papers X, Y and Z is strictly preferable to you....with the key understanding that X,Y and Z denote the same manuscripts in both cases! But now you see that this assertion is useless in practice. In actuality, you are going to be competing with people who have done different work from you. If a search committee views your manuscript Z_1 as being of roughly similar quality to someone else's manuscript Z_2, then it is a point in someone else's favor if their Z_2 has been accepted. But it is just a point, not all the points. If your recommenders talk about the significance of Z_1 and their confidence that it is correct and will be published in a very good journal, and if these recommenders have a strong reputation in the eyes of the search committee, then that is a point in your favor. Not that it is about points: please read on...
The phrase "all other things being equal" is often used in hypothetical discussions of job candidates, but those who have been on search committees are well aware of the irony: in practice, all other things are very rarely equal. People hire based not on rubrics or numerical schemes, but on partially verbalized subjective preferences. Which is not a criticism! We want to hire the person whom we sincerely and holistically believe is the best academic, not the one who has the most points according to some fixed system. If such "metrics" are used at all, they are probably used to sway the opinions of third parties on the search committee, i.e., faculty who are not going to be directly involved with either candidate. In my experience, such "metric differences" have to be rather stark in order for them to really matter: two accepted / one preprint vs. three accepted probably does not look like a significant difference, especially for young academics. But if you were competing with someone who had eight more accepted papers than you, then the person who is pulling for you probably has to convince the rest of the committee that your work is distinctly qualitatively better than that of the other candidate.
Finally, I certainly hope that as a young academic, when you post a paper to the arxiv you also submit it for publication shortly thereafter (if not concurrently) and that you are doing everything you can to make sure your papers are being processed in a timely manner. If so...okay, you are doing your best, and what remains is a lot of randomness that is entirely out of your control. I think search committees understand this and are not going to fault a candidate much for the vagaries of the refereeing process.