Yes, it's hypothetically possible that a higher scoring era would not translate to ease of higher scoring for elite players. (There are factors that could result that way - such as distribution of time on ice or powerplay opportunities).
Relative to the 1980s vs the 2000s and 2010s, it simply isn't the case though.
The historical data doesn't remotely make your point, which is why you selected the specific seasons that supported your point and ignored the ones that refuted it. There is no other rhyme or reason to your selected sample. You chose 05-06 and 18-19 as representative of the modern era and ignored the 12 years in between. Those are the two highest scoring seasons since the lockout - the two biggest outliers. You knew this. Yet for the 70s and 80s you chose 4 or 5 year increments, again, depending on which seasons made your desired point.
I looked back at the points leaders for each season in these eras. You deliberately chose the absolute lowest seasons for the high scoring era and the absolute highest for the low scoring era.
The sample that you portrayed as representative to get an understanding that would indicate "the degree of separation between today's top-five scorers and the top-five scorers of different periods of the past" is cherry picked, misleading, and presents an utterly dishonest impression of the differences between the eras.
If you go back to my post #170, you'll see that in addition to the seasons I more-or-less randomly chose (and no, I didn't choose the highest or lowest-scoring seasons), I also included comparisons of the overall leading point-totals from 1980-81 to 1984-85 (specifically
because that is the highest-scoring modern period) and 2015-16 to 2019-20 (because that is the current period). The discrepancy between the 1st to 5th-leading scorers (not including Gretzky) from these two very different periods is not very different. Again, see post #170 for details.
Since I suspect this still isn't enough to satisfy you as you seem entrenched in your evidence-less opinion, let's run some more numbers, and I'll re-hash some of those stats from post #170 plus further context (in terms of GPG and difference between 1st and 5th leading scorers):
1951-1955 / GPG = 2.53 / 1st above 5th by 71% (30% if we remove Howe)
410 (outlier, Howe)
312
299
241
240
239
1965-1969 / GPG = 2.93 / 1st above 5th by 19%
446
430
401
379
374
1970-1974 / GPG = 3.12 / 1st above 5th by 60% (47% if we remove Esposito)
659
(outlier Esposito)
599
436
416
412
401
1976-1980 / GPG = 3.41 / 1st above 5th by 33%
647
562
528
491
488
1981-1985 / GPG = 3.91 / 1st above 5th by 92% (21% if we remove Gretzky)
985
(Gretzky, extreme outlier)
619
591
577
514
513
1986-1990 / GPG = 3.76 / 1st above 5th by 70% (5% if we remove Gretzky & Lemieux)
857
(Gretzky, extreme outlier)
738
(Lemieux, extreme outlier)
530
525
518
516
503
1991-1995 / GPG = 3.39 / 1st above 5th by 13%
527
521
488
488
468
1996-2000 / GPG = 2.81 / 1st above 5th by 31%
569
495
448
441
434
2006-2010 / GPG = 2.85 / 1st above 5th by 21%
529
510
506 (Crosby)
444
438
2011-2015 / GPG = 2.68 / 1st above 5th by 8%
376
366
357
354
347 (Crosby & Tavares)
2016-2020 / GPG = 2.85 / 1st above 5th by 13%
458
456
454
409
404
So, there it is. We see that in the 1950s, when scoring was lower than at any time in Crosby's career, the difference between the top scorer and 5th-scorer was 30% even with outlier Gordie Howe removed, and a whopping 71% if we include Howe.
So far, this supports my argument.
We also see that in the late-1960s, when scoring was overall just
slightly higher than the past five seasons, the difference between first and fifth was 6% higher than the difference between first and fifth the past five seasons.
This also supports my argument.
It gets tricky in the early 1970s, a very strange period in NHL history. Whether or not we include Esposito a legit 'outlier' and dismiss him from the data (and I think we should, since his VsX score in this period is higher than Mario Lemieux at his peak), it still shows a large distance from first to fifth (or second to sixth), either 60% or 47% respectively, as scoring went up a couple of years after mass expansion. But, as I said, this is a weird historical period in that 50-60% of NHL teams were new or recent expansion clubs, with stronger teams -- esp. Boston -- beating up on them by disproportionate amounts (see: John Bucyk -- 20-goal scorer vs. established teams; 65-goal scorer vs. expansion teams).
This period supports your argument... but I personally wouldn't put too much stock in this strange era.
The latter-1970s shows a 3.41 GPG and a 33% lead from first over fifth. The GPG here is the same as the early-1990s, but the lead of the top scorer is 20% higher. The thing to note is that scoring is way higher than in the earlier-1970s, and yet the leading scorer's lead is considerably less (whether or not we count Esposito).
So, this period supports my argument.
It gets cloudy again through the 1980s because of Gretzky, and then Lemieux, as all-time extreme outliers. We quickly see, however, that by removing Gretzky and Lemieux from the data (and I don't think there's any good argument why we shouldn't), the lead of the remaining top NHL scorer is
less than in the early 50s, late 70s, early 70s, and today -- despite scoring then being notably higher. In fact, with Wayne & Mario removed from the latter-1980s, there's a historically low lead of the remaining top scorer over seventh-place (a piddly 5%), which is less than any other era in history.
This period strongly supports my argument
unless one includes Gretzky and Lemieux. But I see no reason why we should include the two biggest outliers in history since, even if they had never played a game, this would still have been the highest-scoring period of the modern game.
The late-1990s is of note in that, while scoring begins to drop a lot, the leading scorers's lead
increases compared to the early 1990s. Again, this supports my argument. In fact, during Crosby's first five seasons overall, scoring is higher than in the latter-1990s, and yet the leading scorer's lead is less.
The best (only?) evidence here to support your assertion is the 2011-2015 period, in which scoring drops to 2.68 (lowest since the 1950s), and accordingly the leading scorer's lead over fifth drops to a modest 8%. So, this does support your argument. (I suspect, however, that if Crosby had been healthy in this period, his own lead in scoring would have pushed it back up to historically average levels.)
And, again, scoring levels the past five seasons are the same as 2006-11 or in the late-90s, yet the scoring leader's lead over fifth is less.
************
This was an interesting analysis, so thanks for the stimulation. (If you're going to incorrectly accuse me of cherry-picking, you could at least supply some actual evidence/stats of your own to support your position.)