Everyone always devalues Kobe Bryant by asking how many rings he would have won without Shaq, but in reality, the question should be, how many rings would Shaq have won without Kobe?

Kobe’s first 3 rings are not the same as Kobe’s last 2 rings. But the majority of fans online actually treat all 5 rings of Kobe the same anyways. How many times have you heard ‘5 rings!’ been used as an argument for Kobe’s greatness? All the time.

And now Kobe fans are trying to rewrite history by saying he was never a ‘robin’ and never a ‘second option’ by cherry picking Kobe’s best series from that time like 2001 vs the Kings and 2001 vs the Spurs.

But make no mistake, Shaq was the main force during those 3-peat years 2000–2002 no matter how Kobe fans try to spin it. Yeah Kobe had a few series where he scored more than Shaq. Yeah Kobe needed to bail out Shaq sometimes after Shaq fouled out. Ok, NONE of that means that Shaq wasn’t the main player ok? Nor does winning 2 without Shaq retroactively make Kobe better than Shaq for his first 3 rings. Kobe fans always try to fool people with these logical fallacies.

Actually, the Lakers have won more without Kobe than without Shaq, so this should prove something.

And no, it wasn’t because of Kobe that Shaq started ‘winning’ that’s another thing Kobe fans keep talking about how Shaq didn’t win until he got Kobe. Shaq literally beat Michael Jordan and went to an NBA Finals in 1995. That’s not the same as missing the playoffs. Kobe fans treat these two things the same because to them not winning a championship is all the same. Then in 1999 when Kobe was promoted to a starter, they still lost. Kobe fans think he started from 2000, no it’s from 1999. It’s when Phil Jackson became coach in 2000 then they started winning the chip.

Was Kobe important to the 2000–2002 runs? Of course he was, nobody is disputing that. But was T-mac right in saying he could have 3 too? Yeah I think it’s reasonable to say T-mac could have filled in for Kobe the same way, especially during Tmac’s prime.

I mean, even Shaq himself admits this.

You really don’t think any other all-star SG could have filled Kobe’s shoes especially in 2000? In 2000 Kobe averaged 21/4/4 and 15/4/4 in the Finals and they still won. In 2001 and 2002 Kobe got better but I think Tmac, Vince Carter, Iverson, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, any of these guys from that era could have done that too. Shaq drew double and triple teams and you telling me any of those guys can’t score just as much getting those open looks? Ok maybe Kobe is more a gunner in the 4th quarter and might be better on defense. But in 2000, Kobe was not in his prime yet and they still won. In 2001 they were so dominant that even if you swapped Kobe for one of those other guys they lose a few more games and they would still end up winning the whole thing they just wouldn’t be sweeping teams thats all. In 2002 the refs would still rig the Kings series for the Lakers so they would still win that one regardless of Kobe (and Robert Horry was the one making those clutch shots anyways). And in the Finals its the 2000 Pacers, 2001 76ers and 2002 Nets. You telling me without Kobe they can’t beat those guys and you have prime Shaq? Cmon now.