Kobestans constantly say he Kobe has 5 rings and deserves just as much credit as Shaq does. They count all those rings just as much as if he had been leading the team. They say his 5 rings are superior to other players who have 3 or 4 rings, even if those other players were the team leader and Finals MVP for more of theirs. That's what it means to give him FULL CREDIT for the rings.
That's why I say all-or-nothing ring counting is dumb. Kobe's contribution in 2000 (and the other years, but most obviously 2000) was clearly not nearly as important as Shaq's contribution. Yeah he went off some games, just like Wiggins went off some games last year, or Middleton the year before that. Yes, he played a big part in some wins, just like any good role player does. But he wasn't the main reason they won, not even close, and talking like his 78 total points in the 2000 Finals were just as meaningful as another player who put up more than that in 2 games alone is a joke.
You have to see the lack of logic for "all or nothing" ring counting. You full well know that Klay, Middleton, AD, Siakim, Kyrie, Wade, Terry, Pau, etc. don't get the same credit for their rings that Steph, Giannis, LeBron, Kawhi, Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe got. It's obvious that if you have to "ring count" at all, only the best player is going to receive the full credit. But suddenly when Kobe isn't the best player, you want the rules to change for him alone.