c'mon all you guys who just ask the "what ifs"... provide the answers as well.
Okay. Here are the 3 I made, with answers.
If Lemieux had never had his chronic back issues, nor never had his cancer - I say he ends up with more Art Ross trophies than Wayne Gretzky.
I also say we see him make a run at a few single season records of Gretzkys (215 points, 92 goals). I'm not going to lamely predict whether he beats them or not as it would be just a guess - but imo his level of play would certainly have been at that level for at least 2-3 additional seasons, and therefore in a perfect storm/lucky season he could have made a run at some of them.
Despite the above 2 claims - Gretzky firmly remains #1 all time. More consistency overall at start of career (possible Lemieux ages better, but impossible to say 100% how much more mileage affects him, good or bad) helps Gretzky a lot - and mostly, in playoffs Gretzky was untouchable, which would be the big differentiator. Although I think Lemieux ends up #1 for goals all time quite easily - he doesn't touch Gretzky's all time points (and obviously, not assists either). That is unless of course Lemieux somehow plays till 40+ and keeps racking up points, but that seems super unrealistic.
In this scenario - Mario Lemieux has a very, very strong case for #2 all time. (those that still today have Orr #1 bump Lemieux to 3 - but for those who have Gretzky #1 today, I say Lemieux comes in 2 above Orr/Howe).
Orr. As fantastic as Gretzky's career was - i think he's actually quite vulnerable in the back half of his career. Not for anyone of course, just for Lemieux/Orr (arguably the 2 only ever players at his talent level), who both could possibly have aged slightly better under different circumstances. I spoke about Lemieux already - but in a perfectly healthy world I think Orr is the one who ages by far the best out of the 3. Hockey history is full of defensemen who peak or even enter their prime post-30. Orr probably could have had a lot of mileage left to do great things. I personally think we had already seen his peak - so i doubt he'd reach new heights - but he'd certainly maintain his level of play for many more years. I think with enough longevity Orr would be #1 (not unanimously - but by a greater degree than Gretzky).
Crosby. I think 2011, 2012 and 2013 would have been his best seasons without injuries. I get all the people countering with "pace doesn't mean full seasons" - and I acknowledge that Crosby in particular has been notorious in his career for being streaky during some seasons - but I still think those 3 seasons would have been a considerable step up from the rest. I think in 2011 or 2012 he'd have surpassed 120 again, maybe even approached 130 points. How does that impact his legacy? I think he'd be among the select few players with a strong argument for the 5th best peak in hockey after the big 4. His offensive peak would be on the level of Jagr, maybe even slightly above. I think he'd have 3 extra Art Ross trophies to his name, and at least 2 harts (maybe 3). I think he'd stack up pretty nicely to Howe after 13 seasons.