1.) they absolutely did produce similarly. Almost identical with rantenen scoring more goals and slightly less points.
2.) you have presented no evidence at all that “primary points” vs secondary are drivers and make up an 18% contract difference in equal production. None. You have quotes/articles that prove this? You can cite that being a factor in arbitration?
Willy’s comparables to ehlers/forsberg/pasta/JG fit in line based on primary production?
Vanek/heatley/kovy got paid based on primary production?
3.) Marner played with a top 5 goal scorer ever during his ELC. He was stapled to a top 30ish probably goal scorer in his prime. These arguments about coulda shoulda inflated pp stats don’t mean Anything. You are just saying what you want to be true.
Facts are in real world actual production. They were similar.
Facts are that Marner was the only player in that range historically who wasn’t one of the best goal scorers in the league.
you have provided no evidence that primary vs secondary points or “other guy had inflated pp time” are used to determine contracts.
Raw and per game goals and points are for forwards.
The idea that you are suggesting that all the top goal scorers in the game get paid more because of primary points and not goals is just hilarious
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.