LOL that would be such a fun disaster. My point is that a human element, while flawed, is important to include in a model. I don't see how you can scout without having scouts, for example.
I agree with your comments on the difficulty of models. The problem with the human element is that no human can see enough games for enough players to be an adequate sample size. Scouts are paid to do so and even they can't; and they are more often wrong than right. We fans and even media have virtually no chance at seeing enough actual games for most players.
I probably saw de Hann play 4-5 times on TV last year. Really not enough to make an overly meaningful assessment, particularly on TV where the cameras only follow the puck and not every situation is encountered. I think what most try to do is pick up trends or tendencies that players have and not really get a great overall assessment. Do we see ill timed pinches? Does a player tend to stay on the perimeter? Does a he panic when pressured? Does his skating look sub par? etc..
Obviously, we watch our own team enough to get a better overall feel, I'm only referring to other teams.
The 2nd problem with the human element is that it's impossible to remove our own biases. If we are a person that values strong defensive play, or physical play vs. a person that values more offensive creativity and skill, we'll naturally included our biases no matter how hard we try not to.
I get that the models are trying to do what the eye test can't, remove bias and use a bunch of data to get an overall assessment of a player, but as you said, when you remove the human element, it leads to other issues with the model.