, thanks for the feedback. For the radar charts, I think the reference player might be a good idea. The other way I was thinking of was to compare all the players to each other. Say you have a 20-person group. Then you could sort players by their percentile in the group. The only concern is whether this would be effective with such a small player pool.
The commentating problem is something similar to what I'm trying to address. It's much easier to say that Giri draws a lot than say that he has the lowest winning percentage as White. (Or, for that matter, get Giri's draw rate, which is fairly easy. It's 0.419, much higher than someone like Carlsen's 0.261) It's also much less punchy, and harder to back up under actual analysis. (By the way, the White in % thing is true: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/5m5vt3/some_stats_on_the_top_100_players_in_2016/) These things are quantifiable, and I'm trying to make them easier to understand.
Which is most of why I'm also concerned about the criteria: I want them to be easier to understand, and I want them to be actually reflect something. So some were drawn from sources like chess-db.com, which has some statistics (which I'm a little uncertain about, but seem credible,) and some were from chessgames.com, another opening database.
For example, the opening popularity: for the four most-played openings for White and Black, I went and clicked through the most-played moves from both sides for five moves. Then I determined what % of the time when Carlsen was faced with these positions that he encounters often, he plays the most popular move. I also hope I will get more input, and I hope that clarified a few things.