You have used superior players in OV, Malkin who had accolades were performing at a higher level than AM to justify the deal using his per/60 stats to indicate he'd be at the same level as them.
That's not true. Matthews' contract is consistent with pretty much all high-end post-ELC contracts, not just Malkin and Ovechkin, who actually got bigger contracts than Matthews. The fact is that Matthews had one of the best pre-signing periods in the history of the cap era, especially in terms of primary point production (as an example, using your own chosen format, he had the same primary points per game at time of signing as McDavid). He was also absolutely dominant at ES. His pre-signing period overall actually ranks higher relative to his peers than where he places in a ranking of biggest value post-ELC contracts.
You never wanted to account for playoffs as Matthews is an average to below-average performer there vs Malkin/OV who were elite for the most part in their early seasons.
That's again not true. Playoffs do not usually factor much into post-ELC contract valuations, because the overwhelming majority of players either hadn't made the playoffs or been underwhelming in them. Ovechkin had not even played a single playoff game when he signed his post-ELC contract, so not sure where you're getting your information.
You have never considered points/game, points, and always defended your arguments with per/60 stats.
That's again not true. I consider everything, including points and points per game, and I have utilized them within my proof many times. They also do not support your suggested value.
The main issue is that that is
all that many will consider, and that can lead to very inaccurate understandings of the quality, value, and contributions of certain players, especially when there is a significant discrepancy in opportunity. Per-60 metrics are necessary to consider, especially for the PP, because discrepancies in time opportunity in that game state have been proven to have massive impacts on raw production within that game state, and time opportunity for that game state has varied massively across eras and teams for reasons entirely unrelated to the player in question.
When people claim that somebody like Matthews is overpaid, what they are actually saying is that they wish to ignore critical information that would unquestionably be a part of negotiations, and treat Matthews like a bad PP player. Not because he is a bad PP player (he was actually quite great through his pre-signing period), but entirely because of opportunity differences unrelated to his abilities. That is and always was unrealistic.
During his ELC Matthews never produced like the 2nd best player in the world
That's irrelevant. That's not how contracts work in the NHL. Ranking in cap hit does not equal ranking of player. Contracts are for extended term, and players change and evolve. Until recently, the cap also consistently rose, so new contracts would overtake old contracts. Your utilization of raw cap hits instead of cap hit percentages within this discussion misrepresents what's going on.
You always changed your stance and would look to weigh Goals/60, or EVS/5v5 Goals/60 to make Matthews look better
That's 100% false. My position and what I utilize has remained consistent throughout. The focus has in fact always been the PP, because Matthews got comparable opportunity at ES/5v5 - there was less need for per-60 metrics, so again, not sure where you're getting your information.
You tried defending Matthews contract by looking at other horrible deals like Rick Nash who Matthews was vastly better than while ignoring similar level players like Stamkos, Eichel, and Draisaitl.
That is also false. I don't believe I've ever actually done a comparison between him and Nash, though yes, Nash received a comparable contract. Stamkos, Eichel, and Draisaitl were not similar level players at time of signing their respective post-ELC contracts. That is revisionist history. If anybody received an overvalued contract out of them, it was Eichel.
