I agree that plenty of factors affect the outcome of matches, but the table at least suggests there's a strong correlation between the team performance and Kante's presence. Unless you think Chelsea's young players are inconsistent only when Kante plays and the manager is confused only when Kante's fit, they won't contribute to the huge difference reflected from the table. Is the sample size small? Well maybe I could perform a statistical test if this is an academic journal but in the end, it's just another discussion on a forum after all.I'm not surprised that this correction gets skirt around. OPs whole argument falls flat on its face. It's a small sample size, it doesn't take into account the opposition but treats everyone as equal. It doesn't take into account circumstance (i.e. injury, fatigue, home or away match, competition) and it treats every match played equally no matter if he played 90 minutes or 5 minutes. But OP formatted the numbers and put them in a nice table and a lot of people won't therefor question it.
Kante aside this Chelsea side is playing young players which will be inconsistent. They have a new manager who hasn't got everything figured out yet. They've had a striker problem which isn't taken into account either in OP.
Nonetheless, I'm surprised that someone's claiming my whole argument falls flat based only on the table while ignoring the remaining 5 paragraphs of arguments. I feel Kante's overrated because of his limitation on the ball, lack of versatility and all-round ability etc, not simply because the team loses when he plays. The table is never an argument itself and it only serves as a reference.