Perfectly balanced by what standard? By win rate? One good week or one bad week can effect that drastically. By Kill/Death ratio? I've seen people since Alpha only shooting at targets that are close to death or holding their fire until they are sure they'll get the the salvo that gives them the kill. Stacking damage such as fires and flooding also negates this. Average damage? There are days when I average upwards of 80k a match and others when I get happy when I clear 14k. Again the same argument can be made about fires and flooding. It also comes down to what ships you are grinding, what tier, and the configurations of what modules you have unlocked and what captain skills you have. Same goes for average experience.
It is impossible to have a balanced and skill based MM. Forgetting for a second that all stats can be very easily manipulated (if I dropped my 19 point captain in my Kamikaze R and played only it for my next 100 battles my own overall WR would probably go from the mid 50's to low to mid 60s and all subsequent stats would increase as well from K/D, EXP since it is a premium ship, and average damage given the tier), the truth is that our own performance is equally random regardless of skill. While you can state that true skill is the ability to make mistakes less commonly, that is generalized as a whole over all the battles played by a player and doesn't necessarily hold true on an individual basis. Simply put, good players still make missteps and mistakes all the time. Just like bad players can get krakens. I've had about 30 of them. What separates a good player and a bad player in any given match is almost purely situational. Each ship and tech tree has some nuances to master, but that typically comes down to simple experience. You play one long enough and you'll learn the sweet spots of distance, shell lead, angle, etc. Someone with a high win rate tends to achieve that through luck, divisions and reliance on a ship that just 'clicks' for them as much as skill. Sometimes you're lucky enough to find yourself in the right position at the right time to be able to make some amazing plays. Other times you zig when you know you should've zagged and eat that one errant torpedo within the first few minutes of the match or had a citadel smacked by a lucky BB shell from across the map.
People have this opinion that good players wouldn't lemming train down one side of the map while you're stuck trying to delay the enemy team rushing towards your cap. Or that only bad players camp or hang back towards the rear. This is false. I've seen players of every of every stripe perform these actions. Overwhelming wins and losses are systemic and have a lot less to do with the skill of the players on either team than it does with mathematical certainty that comes from losing a ship. For every ship your team loses the more the balance sways in the opposition's favor and the less likely it is for your team to overcome the deficit. It's not just the amount of guns you have to answer against theirs, but also map control and area denial. The team that usually loses the first two ships regardless of tier and type tends to lose the match. There is also an argument to be made against aggressive and passive play styles. The common opinion is that low skill players tend to be more aggressive and die quicker while the higher skilled players use cover and concealment to survive longer. It is often the more aggressive team however that seizes caps early with the support of the team that win, as oppose to the more cautious players who find an island to tuck behind while their destroyers are decimated by the aggressive opposition.
Personally I would argue that we already have skill-based MM, or as close to it as possible. If the vast majority of players (say ~70%) exist with a 48-53% WR, maybe 8% of the population existing above 55% without stat padding, 2-3% at 65% and above without stat padding, and 20% at the below average range then we already see a fairly good dispersion of this in each match simply going off of statistical probability. XVM bared this out on WoTs several years ago. Yeah you will see games where it might be slightly skewed towards one side or the other, but these would be few and far between simply by the numbers and are not the blowout win/losses everyone wants to believe. You are also just as likely to be on the advantageous side as not, so again, balanced.