While it's true that sport scouting has traditionally under-relied on data, I wouldn't be so quick write the entire profession off entirely in favor of spreadsheets. Statistics can certainly be made to lie (cf. the book, "How to lie with statistics"), and there are a lot of aspects of human performance that are difficult to quantify. Performance under pressure is the first thing that comes to mind--reliably sinking a buzzer-beating three-pointer is a harder and more valuable skill to possess than just being a good shooter from beyond the line. You could try to quantify "performance under pressure", but a good scout will pick that up intuitively and probably do a better job of it. As always, the truth lay somewhere in the middle; a combination of both data and human input seems to be the best course.
The baseball equivalent, clutch hitting, has been kicked around in sabermetric circles for almost as long as Bill James has been writing of baseball's flawed stats and biases of pro scouts.
The "common wisdom" of sabermetrics (if you can call it such a thing) holds that clutch hitting doesn't exist, but many including James, aren't quite ready to completely write it off.
The common wisdom isn't that clutch hitting doesn't exist. Hindsight reveals that some people perform better in "pressure situations". The issue is that it's unpredictable and seems to be unrepeatable, and hence not applicable to models.
Your example is a good one: name someone who has a "skill" at draining game-winning buzzer-beaters.
