I don't think you're far off, though, if you are at all. Right now the game lacks "permanence:" anything you do can be undone or replicated given enough time/credits. Lose a Wolf? Replace the hull, find the exact weapons, refit it identically and said Wolf is replaced identically. You can even put the same officer in it and re-name it to the old one. Nothing is inherently unique. When the game revolves around the fleet, as you rightfully said, the Wolf, its crew, its weapons, etc. isn't important so much as the ideal of having a fast harasser in the fleet. In fact, that's what we're really chasing at present: some Platonic ideal fleet that we've all cooked up in our own minds (and debate over ad nauseum!) If we ever get close enough to our thoughts of perfection, the game has little else to offer.
However, when overarching goals like creating outposts, going on quests, discovering jump points, etc. that have permanent effects on the game come to the fore, losing the Wolf or chasing after the ideal of fleet perfection no longer has the same allure. If losing a huge battlegroup meant opening up a new part of the sector (with new systems/ships/weapons/factions, etc.), then you're right: that's an acceptable loss. I might save-scum to have fewer losses but if the battle appears unwinnable by the standards of today (i.e. zero-losses), I'll move-on, especially if the next phase of the game promises newer/better ways of playing (i.e. new ships, new weapons, more income, trade, etc.) That carrot-on-a-stick doesn't exist yet, though. I'm sure it is in the works or planned somewhere down the line.
I don't think that's "theory" per se: it's been done proven plenty of times before in other games but for SS, there is risk in moving on from what has worked (and worked quite well, IMO). I, for one, would love to see more lasting/permanent decisions in the game and more dynamism in the sector at-large.