Okay, this one's hard to answer because if you're the best player on the worst team, you're technically good at what you do, but you're not on a good team, so are you really? If you're the worst player on the best team, at least you had to be good enough to get on the best team, so how good you are is relative. So I'm going to go ahead and say worst player on the best team because in this context, I worked hard to get on the best team in general. There's always room for improvement, and at least I know what I'm doing is worthwhile and actually getting towards a goal while being the best player on the worst team. You're good, but what is it doing? Nothing. You're not getting anywhere. So I'm going to go ahead and say worst player on the best team.