Being the best or being the worst

Being the best or being the worst

This question was proposed to me previously and made me ponder on it. Is it better to be the best player on a losing team or the worst player on a winning team”. In my opinion, it is better to be “the worst player on a winning team” than “the best player on a losing team” There are immense challenges to either scenario. I think of this in basketball terms.

“Best player on a losing team”:

  • Doing your best and trying to elevate the team.
  • You individually are doing well but others may not be
  • You deal with most of blame for success and failure

“Worst player on a winning team”

  • You may be insignificant in grand scheme of things
  • The success is not a direct impact of your performance
  • Your role is mitigated to better suit others

I’ve seen it from both spectrums. Being frustrated from a lack of skill from your peers and also feeling frustrated at yourself for your lack of skill compared to your peers. Being the “least skilled” amongst everyone else gives you a chance to grow and learn from people better than you, and helps you do your best. Being the best amongst people at a low-level will stunt your growth as you move upwards. You are roughly the average of the 5 closest people you talk to. Make sure you surround yourself with people that help you perform your best and motivate you in a positive light to be the best version you can be.