You do realize that both McDavid and Draisaitl have a higher G/gp than Point. Does that surprise you given the three players involved? Oh yah but sample size. I am curious why you set the bar at 80 games? Why not 100 or 150. What's so magic about 80 games? Why not 82, a full season? In that case Point doesn't count because he hasn't hit the cutoff? Who knows what will happen in game 82? Nate MacKinnon has the highest g/gp total on the active list with 44 in 75 but I guess that doesn't count because he only played 75 games. If he plays 5 more I guess its possible that he could have a negative -5 goal total that would drop him below Point. And that Pavel Bure guy only played 64 games. I guess there is no compelling evidence that he could have kept the pace up for 16 more. Or that he could have scored 5 more goals in his next 17 games to catch Point. After all, its not like the guy has a record of being an elite goal scorer that he could present in his defense. Craig Simpson had 36 goals in 67 games. Could he have scored 4 more in his next 13 games? Maybe we should do a statistical analysis and see how it plays out. But let's say that 80 is the right cutoff. Even then you missed a few names. How about Richard or the Hulls or Ciccarelli or Shutt or Leach Or Kerr?
Or how about we look at how Point achieved that elite total. It was based on his performance over just two seasons where he scored 28 goals in 46 games. That would give him an edge of ,609 g/gp over 46 to Draisaitl's career totals of .571 g/gp. But then there is that little thing about Draisaitl's big lead in points to deal with over fewer games. Points other g/gm totals in other playoff years have been .411, .25, ,222 and .4. Draisaitl's 7 in 16 = .4375 from last year was his lowest g/gp total from any of his 5 playoff years. And if you watched the player you would know that his injury impacted his shot a fair bit. Which one of the two is likely to have the highest g/gm total if they each play in 5 more playoffs? So just maybe sample size can bite you as well if you look at things differently.
I've taught statistics at the undergraduate level and probability at the graduate level so I understand basic probability and statistics well enough to know that your sample size argument in this case is completely bogus. I am also pretty confident that if I walked down the hallway to chat with my friends in the Stats Department, they would side with me on this one.