If you actually value the chemistry here, then this poll is stupid. How can Aho+Rantanen show chemistry when they play on different teams? And you can value Kucherov all you want - Rantanen has better PPG in career playoffsgames. Also Rantanen was PPG+ in his second year in NHL, Kucherov in his 4th. I really dont see Kucherov beeing on a different level from Rantanen. Their production is quite even.
1. Why wouldn't you value chemistry here? I'm not saying you use chemistry alone and ignore everything else - but proven chemistry is a good thing, and it's an advantage both Kuch/Point and Pasta/Marchand have over Ranta and Aho.
2. Development isn't linear. Rantanen was ppg in second year and Kuch in 4th? Ok.....and Joe Juneau was ppg in his first three seasons, while Jagr only hit ppg in his 3rd season. Whose seen as better? I'll give you a hint - it's the guy with the initials of JJ.
Kucherov swept all the awards, and had arguably the best offensive season this century (arguably - personally I say it's top ~3-5, but it's up there). Ranta is great and all, but he hasn't peaked that high, and odds are he never does.
3. Playoff ppg. Again - it's true he has better career playoff ppg, but it's over less than half the game, and never past round 2. Kucherov has been to round 3 or beyond 4x already - much harder to score in later rounds. So once again, while it's true Ranta has done great in playoffs so far, Kuch has an edge here as well.