This is a topic I've seen brought up before, but never really discussed purely in depth. As more promotions treat streaming as a big source of revenue, I'm finding myself shifting away from thinking of matches as just happening in themselves and shifting into thinking of matches for their overall place in the TV production. Matches have become like movies with wrestlers playing the role of actors. You've got camera crews, production people, screenplay writers/bookers, narrators/commentators, and directors/agents. When a great movie comes out, a director often gets just as much praise for it as the lead actors, so why not think of wrestling in similar terms?
The wrestler that really opened my eyes up to this was Gail Kim. In her first TNA run she was great, but when she came back to WWE she was nearly getting herself killed botching things left and right. Then she came back to TNA and was great again. How do you explain something like that without taking into account the role of the agents and trainers in her work? My initial reaction was just to think that she was exposed in her WWE run, but now it's a bit more nuanced than that. You can't just pull some random girl off the street and expect her to have a run like Kim in TNA. She might have needed some help, but she was still a great asset to the company. She was a cog who happened to fit a hell of a lot better in the TNA wheel than the WWE one.
The common argument, then, is to say to look at someone in a bunch of different settings and base your evaluation on patterns that you notice. Still, that really only works when looking at the territorial era and doesn't work so well when looking at guys who have the bulk of their work in one or two promotions. It's impossible to completely pin down how much a WWE talent is contributing to their matches versus an agent, but this exactly how it should be when looking it as a TV production. You're supposed to fall in love with the characters and not the people writing the lines.
The more I think about it, though, the more preposterous it seems to rate wrestlers solely based on what we see in the ring. When you watch a movie, you can praise the actor's deliver but you don't give them credit for every line they deliver like we seem inclined to do with what happens in the ring. I think this why, when people rate actors, they look at the whole package and their impact on the industry rather than just what happens on-screen. The WWE GWE with the NJPW criteria seems a step in the right direction, but I've heard that encountered some difficulties with people ignoring the criteria and just rating however they'd like.