Orr was still more overpowering than Gretzky for the simple reason that Orr did everything at a legendary level. If Orr was a centre, Wayne may still have the higher numbers, but not by as much as you'd think. It may have been Orr's numbers he'd have threatened, certainly not Espo's.
However, if Wayne was a defenseman he'd be a train wreck... perhaps he'd be on a Phil Housley level at best. Orr was the best offensive AND best defensive defenseman. He could skate better than anybody, shoot better (or nearly better), pass better, plus he hit, fought, blocked shots and was just plain dominant in every facet.
If this is about "the best" (as I think it is) as opposed to the longest, most complete career, then I can't see how anybody who's ever watched hockey would pick Gretzky over Orr. It's all about the paradigm you're using.
Sorry if that sounds like I'm tyring to make you look bad (this is absolutely not what I want to do, considering I'm really hating when others are doing this to me...), but there's a very obvious counter-argument here, and one that probably forces you to drink a shot :
Neither of the Top-4 shown any kind of competence as a goaltender.
(And come on, Gretzky would either be much better than Housley or promptly moved to F if his coach had a clue).
just to add to that: i think lemieux's ability to dominate in several different eras bolsters his argument. 2000-01 is a well-known case in point. comes back halfway through the season after several years away in a drastically different scoring environment to the one he'd left and leads league in gpg, apg, and ppg, saves team's season (15-14-6 before his return, 27-14-3 afterwards), saves jagr's season (barely ppg before lemieux's return, almost 2ppg afterwards, won art ross), etc.
with lemieux, as with richard, it's at least as much about the myth as the actual results. the style, the stories. 92-93 is the other obvious example. and then there's 5 goals 5 ways, scoring on first shift, the goal vs the north stars... definitely the best highlight reel of all time.
i think from the kind of holistic perspective that this board rightly uses, which weighs talent and accomplishments and myth and consistency, etc., in proportion, there is no argument for lemieux over gretzky. but i would understand individuals rating lemieux at #1 if their criteria are different—eye test, clutch play, putting the team on your back, i dunno. (e.g. i think scotty bowman put lemieux higher.)
This is ... absolutely not what I meant by scoring environment (I was more referring to the divisionnal setup), but your point is actually good (and adds to the list of Pro-Lemieux arguments I made earlier). The same would apply to Raymond Bourque and Patrick Roy, too.
But, there's a caveat : Lemieux's DOB put him in a great position to actually do this. Hasek, Roy, Yzerman, Belfour all put up great performances while being on the other side of 35, and that's only going with the players that are born in 1985. Okay, their performances as senior citizens probably weren't on par with Lemieux's (but they at least came in full seasons!), but it's not like any of these players were quite at Mario's level in the first place. (... okay, MAYBE peak RS Hasek was, but whatever).
I can't think of a Gretzky contemporary who did anything of note after 35. (that's basically Vancouver Messier, post-Detroit Coffey, last-stop-to-Chicago Savard, San Jose Nicholls)... Gretzky's generation was mostly flaming out, fast, at least the forwards (save Messier).
My point is -- maybe Lemieux here benefitted from a structural advantage due to his DOB, compared to Gretzky at least. Hell, I'm not even sure that, 200o-onwards, Lemieux was the best player born on Oct. 5 1965 available for voting in this round.
