You could make a claim that it's quality vs quantity but a game is 90 minutes and it's over. So it doesn't matter if you miss 5 important touches if you end up creating 2 goals, or if you played very tidy and created two goals.
I think this is the crux of the argument and why there will always be two "sides" to this debate. On both sides it's an intuition and belief rather than anything based on empirical evidence.
I think if you took your argument to its logical conclusion you would see the issues with it, but I don't care enough about the debate to do that or to look for the empirical evidence.
All I'll say is that no player in history has ever been judged by goals and assists alone. Particularly playmakers. Football is a very low scoring sport so goals are more decisive, but because they're so rare the other involvements take on more importance. Basketball for example is very different.
Losing the ball constantly has a big impact in football, even more so in this era of football. If someone keeps the ball all the time and creates two goals he has almost always been better than someone who creates two goals and always loses the ball. That one metric doesn't define a performance.
The other problem here is the premise that someone like Bruno can create a goal every game, so his all round games matters little. We know that hasn't happened and won't happen, so in games like yesterday when he can't create, his other deficiencies become much more prominent. Dr Bruyne has those games too but has much better technique to fall back on so his overall impact is generally higher, in good games and poor ones.