Stockton's PPR makes Nash's year seem routine

Ever done something out of habit even though you know it doesn't make any sense?

You're not alone. NBA execs do it, too. For a good example, consider how they evaluate point guards.

Coaches and personnel people almost instinctively look to a player's assist/turnover ratio to check how he's doing. But ask them why they look at assist/turnover ratio, and you'll get lots of blank stares and convoluted answers. Probe further, asking if they think
Reggie Miller would make a better point guard than Steve Nash, and you'll quickly get a series of guffaws. But guess who had the better assist/turnover ratio last year?

Yet, in spite of the logical disconnect of a name like Miller's showing up near the top of the list, some still insist on using assist/turnover ratio to gauge point guards. They're getting some confusing information. For instance, this year's leader, for a second straight season, isn't Nash. It isn't Jason Kidd or Baron Davis or
Brevin Knight, either. It's (drumroll, please) … Antonio Daniels. Does that mean Daniels is really better than those guys at running a team? Of course not.

What it really means is almost nothing, because assist/turnover ratio is a flawed stat. The problem isn't with "assist" or "turnover," it's with the "ratio."