Con sorry, I can't do it anymore. I love me some stats, but football stats as a whole are archaic and incomplete and any argument put forth as such requires context and a healthy dose of "These are probably not a good indicator of a player."
Two things:
1) Sample Size
Simply taking the stats of this season and saying that Bannan created x chances in so many minutes at x chances per minute without taking into account the minuscule sample size is simply not taking into account the enormity of the game. Consider that a whole season of games is 3600 minutes give or take with stoppage time, we've only gone through half of that. Consider that even a full season of stats isn't even enough to judge a player and you have an incomplete picture with numbers attached to the side. They're helpful but not indicative of a player's performance otherwise Albrighton should obviously start all our games!
2) Simplicity
He has an X% passing accuracy and creates X/chances per minute are equivalent of saying that a baseball pitcher has this ERA and this many wins so he's obviously a good player.
It's not true.
There's so many other things to take into consideration besides the raw numbers. A complete vector diagram of his passes. His movement and ground covered. His positions when receiving the ball. The resulting positions when a pass is delivered. The regression rate of his "key passes." God, there's just so many things to take into consideration besides "% possession and complete" and "key passes created." They are helpful but shouldn't be used as a comprehensive indicator of a player's worth.
I will agree with you that Bannan has created a good number of chances but exactly how helpful he is to the team as a whole is debatable at best and I certainly don't see him being linked to ManU and Arsenal anytime soon.