Face it. There is nothing Gretzky could ever have done to earn best player from certain Orr and Lemieux fans. They will never accept someone with Gretzky's style as the greatest. Plus, it is very hard to fight dreams of what if... For myself, I assume Hart, Pearson, HF board voters, and "The Hockey News" are probably not all wrong.
I continue to be in awe of some of my memories of Orr and Lemieux at their peak. I can see how tempting it would be to only remember that and assume it would have continued for at least 20 years, but that is highly improbable. Players whose game emphasizes speed or physical dominance usually taper off quickly when time catches up to them.
When Orr retired, he had played as long as Gretzky was in Edmonton. In that time, he had 3 Hart Trophies and 1 Pearson Trophy (now Lindsay Award). Maybe he gets two more before 1971. Depending on how you measure, he had 2 great playoffs, and 1 or 2 more good ones. Gretzky had 5 in that time. Orr was truly amazing, but playoffs, writers, and players all tell the story of a great player who was not quite as dominant as we remember.
Lemieux also had 3 Hart Trophies. With fewer injuries, he may have had 5. He had 2 dominant playoff performances and two other good ones. He had 4 Lindsay Awards. By these metrics, it appears that he is closer to Gretzky than Orr is. As for dominance, I do not accept that we can extrapolate the PPG over the missed games. It is far more probable that he would have slowed down as the interminable season ground him down. The distinct pattern is that Lemieux was amazing, but almost always fell just a little short of Gretzky.
I find it quite disrespectful and ignorant to boldly proclaim that any player is obviously the best and question the intelligence of those who disagree. However, by all that I can see, Gretzky had the best arguments for being the best after his time in Edmonton, and his playoff run in '93 followed by his last scoring title in his 15th year put away lingering questions.