I'd rather contribute to my team's success (even if there was little of it) than be a bench-riding waste-of-space. Plus, you can still make the all-star team if you're on the worst team ;).

Of course the best player on the worst. The intensity of being the worst player on a great time would make you guilty and even liable towards rabid fans. The Andrés Escobar murders show this -- while not specifically the "worst" player on the team, he was gunned down and killed after scoring an own goal in the 1994 FIFA cup, losing his "great team" the championship.

However, the "diamond in the rough" player becomes something of a cult hit, and will earn respect among fans, rather than being an infamous or unlucky player that "loses the game" or "warms the bench".

This is a tough question to answer in just one way for I believe being a member of either has its advantages. For instance, if you're the best player on a bad team you can help to bring them up to a higher level. If you're the worst player on a good team you may have to sit it out to listen and learn and get to play if someone is injured or put in when you're needed if you're good at only one thing!.

When I played ball, I was on two teams which were the worst in their leagues. Myself, and my friends, S.S., 2nd Base and Center Fielder came on board to play and we brought them up to 1st place three years in a row! It was a great feeling for us and for the rest of the team. They finally referred to themselves as "THE" Team and not the "We're just a team who plays while the guys are playing to pass the time." It was fun and rewarding.

If you're just as good a player in both situations it's better to be the worst on the best. Yeah maybe you look better on the bad team because you're the best, but it's all about WINNING. The only thing that matters is winning games. It doesn't matter how good you are, and how well you perform, it's depressing to lose. Also in my experience in sports the better the team you're on the more you push yourself to become better as an athlete. If you're the worst on the team, one would hope you would do everything possible to change that status. Being the best on bad team hinders you from becoming an even better player (in many cases).

If your the worst on the best, you get the same amount of money, maybe even more. Most teams that are bad cannot afford good players. However, if you were on a great team, and you won a championship, you would get a championship bonus, as well as a possible extension, endorsement deals, etc.

Also, self-esteem is a big issue. If your team constantly struggles, you will probably feel you don't belong on the team. You will almost certainly demand a trade or signing bonus, while you are still getting mad at your team and coaches. It would be much better being in some form of spotlight, like winning a championship. You could still get a good salary, and feel like you accomplished something.

Worst on the best team, because then at least I control my ability to improve. If I practice and stuff then I can get better, and at least the team is winning. With best on the worst, you have no control over winning or losing, or anything.

Just ask Dan Marino, 'nough said.

It's always great to be the best player, but at the end of your season you have to look at what youve accomplished. To win MVP is a great honor but it comes a distant second to winning the championship.