The history of contracts is the evidence. I've done quite a bit of research on the history of contracts (especially post-ELC), and the correlations and the driving factors behind them, which while not perfect, is much more than you are basing your claims on. Goals actually correlate pretty poorly with contracts. Much worse than other forms of production, including primary. It's possible that unique goal-scoring proficiency gave a boost to the very upper tier, but that wouldn't apply to Rantanen and Marner, and there's really no evidence that it's about goals specifically and not overlapping production metrics and the other contributing factors that apply to those players and have way more consistent impacts throughout the data set.
Marner was a better producer and primary producer, both overall and in every game state. Marner was a better goal scorer in every game state except the PP, where Rantanen was the only one of the two to be put in a goal scoring role. Marner also brought additional impacts that Rantanen didn't. The contract range that Marner was in and the gap between them and the tiers above and below them are consistent with his quality and performance relative to them.
Not really sure why you're bringing up linemates when that just makes Marner look even better. Marner did not play with Matthews outside of the PP in the 3rd year (his worst PP year), and only played with Tavares in the 3rd year. Marner was always the best player on his line, while Rantanen was joined at the hip with Mackinnon and always playing second fiddle.
Their PP production levels are not 'coulda woulda shoulda'. It's how they performed. Teams pay for player impacts, not the amount of PP time their team gets.
The principle is no different than per-game, which you admit to using.
. If we can replace our start with an even better star, doubt anyone will complain. But
and not surprised at all lol
