To evaluate this, I separated the games into 7 groups and calculated the winrate and my position in the XP table (1 being top earner and 7 being bottom). XP table is designed to measure skill by the developers and the top XP earner on the losing team saves his star:
My position on won and lost games is somewhat different. In all, but the ranking out segment, I got better position when I won than when I lost. My overall position got better over time (the first group includes the 11+ bracket which has bad players in it). These indicate that my skill increased and also that I won the games where I expressed better skill.
However in my best group, the one I actually ranked out, I won games where I was “less skilled”, which would indicate better meta or strategy. I used Grozovoi for carrier games with 6/8 wins. My Grozovoi never earned good XP, because it barely did damage to enemy ships. Its job was to flank, capture undefended points (in carrier games the teams stick together at one point) and to waste the time and planes of enemy carriers. I also put back the 20km torpedoes which are best not to do damage, but to force distant battleships to emergency turn, losing DPS and showing vulnerable side to our battleships.
Winrate correlated properly with position (=skill). The better my position was in a group of games, the better the winrate. However the correlation was weak.
So there is definitely something in Stawek’s claim, and this is why I didn’t post any strategy guide: because I’m unsure if my strategy really works, or simply I was stumbling around the map aimlessly and won only because I did well in random encounters. We’ll see in next season.