The ideal thing to do IMO is to look at peak and consistency over the years equally which is not that easy in itself. There are players like Ronaldinho who despite not being as consistent as say someone like Giggsy would be rated higher because their peak was extra ordinary, while in some cases a short peak would be dismissed and inconsistency of the said player would be highlighted more.
I do agree that taking the peak into account is a way of simplifying the judging/voting process. Possibly the one thing that can be done is saying "X number of minimum years for which the player should have displayed enough consistency to count it as a genuine peak and not a purple patch or a 1/2 season wonder". Surely something to talk about before the next one. It usually isn't an issue apart from few exceptions.
Yup agree with all that again, it's just hard to translate it into an easy rule for the voters.
Also the x number of years idea wouldn't even get around someone like Torres because he surely qualifies as having a sustained peak of 3/4 years, as you couldn't put a higher time requirement than that really.
So we are back to the issue of how do you rate prime Torres vs prime Batigol - which I agree should be heavily in favour of Batistuta.
Maybe I'll just remove the comments from the OP about prime form etc, and let the voters attach their natural weight/value to each player.
Or how about some comment like "when assessing players their peak, consistency and career success should be taken into account"..? Let's leave it till after the game anyway, couldn't be closer this one