Getting to the Why in Player Evaluation

It is a commonly held wisdom that the truth behind anything can often be found simply by asking why three times. I believe the same thought process needs to be brought to player-evaluation.  My experience bringing data-generated scouting reports to the hockey establishment has often been one of trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
While I provide teams I communicate with specific data and success-rates based on actual hockey plays over substantial periods of time, they are asking me to rate a player’s speed, strength, competitiveness, and hockey sense; I’m asking myself why? How can I place a value on a perception? Is there a base value? Not that speed, strength, competitiveness, and hockey-sense aren’t important; they absolutely are. My ultimate question simply becomes, why are these important?
In other words, why is a faster player more attractive than a slower player? Why is a stronger player more attractive than a weaker player? Why is a competitiveness valued? Why is hockey-sense important?
The answers are obvious, but need to be expressed anyway. A faster player is more likely to recover loose-pucks, beat players 1-on-1, or get back into position than a slower player. A stronger player is more likely to win puck-battles than a weaker player, while also being more difficult to push off the puck. A competitive player will be more involved in the play than other players, while also more likely to win puck-battles, or make a second-effort. A player with hockey-sense will read the play well. Allowing him to recover loose-pucks, intercept opposition passes, or position himself better defensively.
Now that we know why speed, strength, competitiveness, and hockey-sense are valuable, why ask data-generated scouting to rate them? They simply can't be quantifiably related to hockey. The answers don’t fit the questions, because the original questions are based on perceptions rather than results.
It’s time to look beyond the physical skills, and focus on how those skills translate to the game. Why are we asking about a player’s speed, without tracking how many loose-pucks he recovers compared to other players. Why are we asking about a player’s strength, without tracking how successful they are at beating players 1-on-1 along the wall? Or removing puck-possession from the opposition by way of a stick, or body-check? Why ask about a player’s competitiveness without tracking how many events they engage in per-minute of ice-time? Or how many times they block a shot? 
The questions regarding speed, competitiveness, and strength are important. Perception-based scouting requires them. My point is simply why not ask tangible questions, based on quantifiable results? Then use this data to compliment perception-based player-evaluation with the player-data produced on the ice; while playing the game. Trust me, this player-data correlates directly with both player and team success. How can it not?
Why not call it the other 2%?
A list, and explanation of all the events I currently track can be found here.