Kobe Bryant: Were His First 3 Rings More Michael Jordan or Scottie Pippen?

There's no question about Kobe Bryant deserving all five of his rings—he absolutely does. The question is whether he deserves the most credit for those rings, as much credit or more credit than anyone else on the team. Was he more "Michael Jordan" as some claim, or was he more "Scottie Pippen" as others do?

I feel the need to be deliberately redundant as some are going to have an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and say that Bryant won five rings and I'm trying to "take them away" from him. I'm not. Again, Bryant deserves every one of the five rings he wears. He was a crucial aspect of the team for every one of them. 

However the same can be said for every one of Scottie Pippen's six rings. He was also a critical element to every one of the Bulls' wins. If you feel that by considering whether Bryant was more "Pippen" for his first three rings I'm taking them away from him, I'd say that you are trying to take away all six of Pippen's rings. 

Let's instead of erecting straw agree that both players earned every one of their rings. 

At the same time, let's agree that not that every player on every team deserves equal credit for every ring. Derek Fisher's "five rings" are not the same as Bryant's "five rings" even though they came on the exact same teams. Bryant did more than Fisher to win those rings. 

Bryant was one of the two most important players on all five of the championship teams. So was Pippen for all six of his. The only question here is whether Kobe was the most important player or the second-most important player. 

I feel that to make a fair comparison the first thing we need to do is give more evaluation of Pippen. People too often try and relegate him to some sort of second-class star status, and understate his value not only to the Bulls but as a player period. 



To put things in perspective, over the span that the Bulls won their six c...