Neither of the candidates you describe will even get a faculty interview.
Reply to below: I think it's valid. The first researcher has not demonstrated they will be leader/pioneer/inventor/theorizer/discoverer of new research findings, if that's all they've done - this is what reputable research universities are looking for. The second researcher has, well, no findings at all.
Edit: To clarify, I was also assuming some typical amount of other research credentials, as well. From Al-Khwarizmi's reply it sounds like the second candidate is likely to be the only one interviewed, which rules out the possibility of hiring the first candidate, the superior experimentalist.
If they have a good research portfolio otherwise, then the first candidate's chances are unaffected, and the second candidate's chances at an interview are probably reduced.
The first candidate's replication studies won't really count for anything (maybe a slight boost). The second candidate's bogus studies will count negatively.
The process he describes is not reflective of US research university faculty hiring practices - the faculty will read your papers, they will solicit expert opinions from other leading researchers in the same research areas as you.
Reply to below: I think it's valid. The first researcher has not demonstrated they will be leader/pioneer/inventor/theorizer/discoverer of new research findings, if that's all they've done - this is what reputable research universities are looking for. The second researcher has, well, no findings at all.