I am clueless about the stock market, so please forgive my naivety and incorrect use of terms.

Don and others, how much value, if any, is there in the (ignorant?) belief that some of the worst performing stocks in the present can become the most profitable in the future?

Surely there are pros and cons to such a strategy, and I am sure it would be relatively easy to research this, but is there any valid stock market reason to assert that, given 100 badly-performing stocks and 100 well-performing stocks, the 100 badly-performing stocks will perform better (overall, in the aggregate) over a certain period of time in the future than the 100 currently well-performing stocks?

For example, I recently read about a particular bitcoin currency that 'tanked' (my word) and was now worth really very, very little. I realize bitcoin currency is highly speculative, so bitcoin currency may not be a good example, but would, for example, buying $100 worth of each of the 10 worst performing bitcoin currencies (like the above-mentioned one that tanked recently) today be necessarily foolish?

I had been thinking of this concept and then read something that I believe seemed to support an example of how some of the worst stocks 'rebounded.'

I guess the above can be asked about professional sports as well.

Any thoughts?