But the data is about to what degree the nix play better at home.
So on the one hand the data tells them they play better at home and they need to get their heads read for believing it, and on the other they need to get their heads read if they don't already know that they play better at home.
Confusing stance.
They did not need the data in the first place to know they play better at home and once again, better with a larger croud. To say that the larger croud has a direct correlation to the amount of touches and shots a player has is the joke.
So a larger croud makes them play better, but doesn't make them get more touches, shots etc. They just 'play better' without any improvement in any metric whatsoever?
As I said earlier, I don't know. I just think it'd be interesting to find out.
You said yourself that teams play better at home, that HAS to correlate to some sort of metric.
Whether it is meaningful or not is another story, and one any analysis would try to figure out.
My belief is that croud doesn't affect things too much, and the effect of playing at home is more to do with travel, routine etc. You could then analyse distance travelled vs results for example. You can factor it in.
Likewise, the effect is more likely to be greater the other way round. The better the team is playing, the more touches Krishna gets, the more crouds want to attend the games. You can factor that into analysis too (and it seems these guys have conveniently ignored it, I agree with you)
I doubt 43 people make any difference, it might be that Krishna gets 0.0000000000000001 extra touch per game from 43 people. But playing in front 30,000 people may lift his performance and inspire him to do better than he would in front of an empty stadium. Likewise after a certain point any added effect of the croud is likely to drop off. Playing in front of 1million people may be exactly the same as playing in front of 10million people (as an extreme example).