A simulated selection process replicating the actual National Basketball Association’s (NBA) player entry event of that year. It served as a predictive exercise, attempting to forecast which players would be chosen by each team in the order they were expected to be selected. For example, several iterations correctly anticipated Anthony Bennett being chosen first overall, though his subsequent NBA career did not align with that expectation.
These simulations provided valuable insights for teams preparing for the actual event, offering potential strategies and highlighting player strengths and weaknesses. They also served as a key tool for fans and analysts to debate potential team needs and player fits, contributing to the pre-event discourse and excitement. Examining previous simulations offers a retrospective view on scouting accuracy and player development trajectories.
The following sections will delve deeper into specific outcomes, notable predictions, and the overall impact of the pre-event simulations for that particular year, focusing on key players and teams involved.
1. Anthony Bennett’s Selection
The selection of Anthony Bennett as the first overall pick in the 2013 NBA Draft by the Cleveland Cavaliers was a central, and ultimately controversial, outcome widely reflected in pre-event simulations. The frequency with which simulations correctly predicted Bennett’s selection underscores their potential predictive power. However, his subsequent performance highlighted a critical limitation: projections focused primarily on perceived potential at the time, not necessarily actual NBA readiness or long-term development. Several mock drafts identified Bennett’s offensive capabilities and potential as a stretch-four, but few accurately foresaw the struggles he would face adapting to the professional level. This disconnect reveals the challenge of translating pre-draft analysis into reliable assessments of future success.
The prominence of Bennett’s name in various mock drafts prior to the event significantly shaped public perception and team strategy. Teams reportedly adjusted their player evaluations and trade considerations based, in part, on the expectation that Bennett might be unavailable. Furthermore, the widespread prediction heightened the scrutiny surrounding the selection itself, amplifying both the Cavaliers’ decision-making process and Bennett’s eventual performance. This dynamic illustrates the real-world influence of these projections on team management and player expectations. Teams use these models to gauge the potential value of their draft position and explore potential trades or player development strategies, based on these simulated outcomes.
In summary, while simulations often accurately foresaw Anthony Bennett’s placement at the top of the 2013 NBA Draft, the subsequent divergence between prediction and reality serves as a critical reminder of the inherent limitations in prospect evaluation. This episode underscores the fact that simulated selection processes, while informative, are not infallible predictors of future performance, and that a more holistic approach, considering multiple factors beyond pre-draft analysis, is essential for assessing a player’s NBA prospects.
2. Predictive Accuracy Variance
The degree to which pre-event simulations aligned with the actual outcomes of the 2013 NBA Draft varied significantly across player selections and team strategies. This variance highlights the inherent difficulties in prospect evaluation and underscores the limitations of relying solely on simulated scenarios for decision-making.
-
Early vs. Late Round Accuracy
Simulations generally exhibited higher accuracy in predicting the selections within the top ten picks compared to later rounds. Early selections are often based on more readily available information, extensive scouting reports, and perceived “safe” choices. Later rounds, however, become increasingly speculative, with teams prioritizing specific skill sets or perceived upside, leading to greater deviations between simulations and actual picks. For instance, mock drafts might have accurately predicted the top three selections with relative consistency but shown considerable variation regarding who would be selected in the mid-to-late first round.
-
Position and Role Specificity
Predictive accuracy also differed based on player position and projected role. Simulations tended to be more accurate for players with clearly defined skill sets and established college roles. Conversely, projections for players considered “projects” or those with positional ambiguity showed greater variance. A simulation might accurately forecast a center with proven rebounding and defensive abilities being selected within a certain range, while struggling to pinpoint the draft position of a guard with raw athleticism but limited shooting accuracy.
-
Influence of Team Needs and Hidden Information
Simulations often failed to account for the specific, and sometimes undisclosed, needs and priorities of individual teams. A team might deviate from expected selections based on internal evaluations, pre-draft workouts, or strategic considerations not publicly available. For example, a team may have a hidden need at a specific position not evident from external analysis, leading to a “reach” pick that defied simulation predictions. The impact of private workouts and team-specific scouting reports is often underestimated in publicly available projections.
-
Impact of Risky vs. Conservative Choices
The willingness of teams to take risks on unproven talent significantly influenced the accuracy of simulations. Teams that consistently opted for “safe” picks aligned more closely with predicted outcomes, while those willing to gamble on high-upside, high-risk players introduced greater unpredictability. A team known for its conservative draft strategy might have followed the projected selections closely, while a team seeking a potential superstar, regardless of risk, could deviate substantially from the expected outcomes.
These contributing factors collectively illustrate why predictive accuracy in simulations related to the 2013 NBA Draft varied considerably. The interplay of publicly available information, hidden team strategies, and the inherent uncertainties in assessing player potential ensured that no simulation perfectly mirrored reality. Understanding these variances highlights the limitations of relying solely on simulations for decision-making and underscores the importance of considering a wide range of factors when evaluating draft prospects.
3. Team Strategic Approaches
Team strategic approaches are intricately linked to the existence and analysis of simulations concerning the 2013 NBA player selection event. These simulations served as external data points influencing how teams formulated their draft strategies. Front offices utilized published simulations to gauge market perception of player value, anticipate competitor actions, and identify potential trade opportunities. The accuracy, or inaccuracy, of these simulations could inadvertently shape a team’s draft board and influence their ultimate selections. For example, if multiple simulations consistently projected a specific player being available at a certain pick, a team might feel less pressure to trade up to acquire that player. Conversely, a universally high ranking in these simulations might compel a team to move aggressively to secure a prospect. Cleveland’s selection of Anthony Bennett, regardless of its ultimate outcome, exemplifies a situation where perceived value, potentially amplified by simulation predictions, led to a strategic decision. The practical significance lies in recognizing these simulations not as pure predictors but as components of the information ecosystem within which teams operate.
Furthermore, strategic approaches also encompassed how teams internally prepared and analyzed player data, including how they weighted external opinions derived from simulations. Teams with robust scouting departments and proprietary analytics were likely better equipped to filter the noise and identify discrepancies between simulation projections and their own internal valuations. Conversely, teams with fewer resources or a greater reliance on external sources may have been more susceptible to being swayed by popular sentiment reflected in these simulations. Therefore, a team’s organizational structure and analytical capabilities moderated the degree to which these external projections influenced their decision-making process. A team with a “best player available” philosophy might rely less on simulations driven by positional needs, while a team focused on immediate roster deficiencies could strategically target players highlighted by simulations as fitting those needs. The use of simulations varied depending on the franchise’s philosophical approach.
In conclusion, understanding the interplay between team strategic approaches and simulations of the 2013 NBA selection necessitates acknowledging the nuanced role simulations played. They were neither definitive predictors nor irrelevant distractions, but rather pieces of information strategically incorporated, weighted, and interpreted within a broader framework of team-specific evaluations and organizational priorities. The effectiveness of a team’s strategic approach depended on its ability to synthesize external projections with internal assessments, mitigating potential biases and maximizing the likelihood of identifying talent that aligned with their long-term objectives.
4. Player Potential Assessments
Player potential assessments formed the core of the predictive exercise. These assessments, often based on a combination of statistical analysis, scouting reports, and medical evaluations, represented attempts to quantify a prospect’s future contributions. They directly influenced simulation outcomes. A higher perceived potential, indicated by superior athleticism, skill development, or projected role fit, increased a player’s likelihood of being selected earlier in a simulation. Real-life examples illustrate this connection: players with high potential assessments, such as Victor Oladipo (known for his athleticism and defensive capabilities) were consistently projected within the top tier of the simulation. The practical significance lies in the understanding that the accuracy of these simulations hinged heavily on the reliability and comprehensiveness of the initial player potential assessments. In instances where assessments proved inaccurate, simulation predictions inevitably deviated from the actual draft results.
The accuracy of these depended on the factors weighted. Mock drafts valued offensive output from college or international leagues. Other considerations included the athlete’s size and athleticism metrics, and character evaluations via interviews with the prospect and those close to them. Mock drafts sometimes overemphasized a certain skillset such as a players size, which is a tangible metric easy to assess and quantify. However, intangibles such as work ethic or coachability are harder to quantify and thus potentially undervalued. For example, while some players were expected to develop based on their current perceived potential, many failed to achieve the expected results, underscoring the limited reliability of prospect evaluation.
In conclusion, the relationship between player potential assessments and these pre-event simulations was symbiotic and critical. The quality of the former directly determined the validity of the latter. The inherent difficulty in accurately gauging potential, coupled with the tendency to overvalue certain attributes, presented challenges in consistently generating precise predictions. Understanding this dynamic reinforces the need for a nuanced approach to prospect evaluation, acknowledging the inherent uncertainties involved in predicting future performance, even with advanced analytical tools. The simulations should be viewed as informative rather than predictive.
5. Media Coverage Impact
Media coverage significantly shaped public perception and team strategy during the lead-up to the 2013 NBA Draft. The dissemination of simulated draft outcomes through various media platforms television, print, and online amplified certain narratives and influenced player valuations. This influence created a feedback loop, where media projections impacted team decision-making and vice versa.
-
Amplification of Consensus Projections
Media outlets tended to emphasize simulated outcomes that aligned with prevailing narratives and expert opinions. This amplification created a perception of consensus, even when underlying data might have been less conclusive. For example, if several prominent mock drafts consistently placed a player within the top five selections, media coverage reinforced this expectation, potentially influencing teams to overvalue that prospect. This “groupthink” effect could lead to draft-day surprises when teams deviated from the perceived consensus.
-
Creation of Draft Stock Narratives
Media coverage played a crucial role in constructing narratives around individual players, categorizing them as “rising stars,” “falling prospects,” or “sleeper picks.” These narratives, often based on anecdotal evidence or selectively presented statistics, influenced public opinion and, potentially, team evaluations. If a player was consistently portrayed as having “character concerns” in the media, his draft stock might fall, even if his on-court performance warranted a higher selection. Conversely, positive media attention could elevate a player’s perceived value, regardless of his actual potential.
-
Influence on Team Decision-Making
Teams, while conducting their own independent evaluations, were not immune to the influence of media coverage. Public perception, shaped by media narratives, could put pressure on teams to conform to expectations, especially regarding high-profile selections. A team might be hesitant to select a player deemed a “reach” by the media, even if their internal scouting reports suggested otherwise. This pressure to avoid public criticism could lead to strategically suboptimal decisions. Conversely, media buzz around a player could increase a team’s interest, even if they initially had reservations.
-
Impact on Player Expectations and Perceptions
Media coverage shaped the expectations placed upon drafted players, influencing their public image and self-perception. Players selected higher than projected might face increased scrutiny and pressure to perform immediately. Conversely, players drafted later than expected might feel slighted or undervalued. These altered expectations could affect a player’s confidence, motivation, and overall career trajectory. Furthermore, media narratives could create lasting impressions of players, influencing how they were perceived by fans and the league throughout their careers.
In summary, media coverage exerted a significant influence on the 2013 NBA Draft by amplifying existing narratives, shaping public perception, and indirectly influencing team decision-making. The interaction between media projections and team strategies created a complex dynamic where perceptions often intertwined with reality, underscoring the media’s role in the draft process beyond simple reporting.
6. Draft Stock Fluctuations
Draft stock fluctuations, referring to the upward or downward movement in a player’s perceived value and projected draft position, constituted a significant component of the pre-selection environment of the 2013 NBA event. Simulations served as barometers, reflecting these fluctuations as new information became available or as team needs shifted. An instance of a player experiencing a rapid rise in stock could be attributed to strong performances in pre-draft workouts or positive reports regarding their medical evaluations. Conversely, negative publicity, inconsistent performances, or concerns about a player’s fit with specific teams could cause a decline. These shifts were readily captured in simulations, providing a dynamic view of the evolving draft landscape.
The dynamic nature of draft stock was influenced by several factors. A primary driver was the release of scouting reports and player evaluations by prominent analysts. Positive or negative reviews from respected figures could significantly alter a player’s projected draft position. Injuries or medical concerns revealed during the pre-draft physicals also had the potential to dramatically decrease a player’s stock. Furthermore, team-specific needs and preferences played a crucial role. For example, a team in desperate need of a point guard might be willing to reach for a player at that position, regardless of his overall ranking, thereby artificially inflating his draft stock. Draft simulations attempted to account for these factors, but the inherent unpredictability of human evaluation ensured that fluctuations were a constant presence.
In conclusion, draft stock fluctuations were an intrinsic element of the pre-selection environment for the 2013 NBA event. These fluctuations were reflected in and, to some extent, influenced by simulations, highlighting the dynamic nature of player valuation and the challenges inherent in projecting draft outcomes. Simulations served as a window into the evolving landscape of prospect evaluation, reflecting the constant stream of information that shaped team strategies and player destinies. The importance lies in recognizing these models not as crystal balls, but as summaries of the best information and analysis available at a particular moment.
7. Scouting Report Influence
Scouting reports exerted a significant influence on the composition and accuracy of simulations pertaining to the 2013 NBA player selection event. These reports, compiled by team scouts, independent analysts, and media outlets, served as primary source material for evaluating player potential and projecting draft positions. The content of these reports directly shaped player valuations, leading to specific placements within the simulated draft order. A player lauded for his shooting proficiency in scouting reports, for instance, was likely to be projected higher than a player with comparable athleticism but noted shooting deficiencies. Therefore, the reliability and breadth of scouting reports were foundational to the predictive power of these simulated drafts. The case of Trey Burke, whose scouting reports highlighted his playmaking ability and leadership qualities, illustrates this connection. His consistent placement within the top ten in simulations stemmed directly from the positive attributes identified in these reports. The practical significance lies in recognizing that simulations mirrored, amplified, and sometimes distorted, the prevailing opinions and evaluations presented within these scouting documents.
Furthermore, the strategic interpretation of scouting reports by simulation creators also played a crucial role. Different analysts might weigh specific attributes differently, leading to variations in player rankings and projected draft positions. Some simulations may have prioritized offensive statistics, while others emphasized defensive capabilities or intangible qualities. The emphasis placed on specific aspects of a player’s game, as highlighted in scouting reports, directly impacted how they were positioned within the simulated draft order. For example, a player described as a “high-risk, high-reward” prospect in scouting reports might be assigned a wider range of potential draft positions in different simulations, reflecting the inherent uncertainty associated with his projection. This underscores the subjective nature of talent evaluation, even when based on seemingly objective scouting data. An example, at the time, was Shane Larkin and his size limitations, some reports disregarded it while others docked him for his height.
In conclusion, the influence of scouting reports on simulations of the 2013 NBA Draft was profound and multifaceted. These reports provided the raw data and qualitative assessments that formed the basis for player valuations and projected draft positions. The strategic interpretation of these reports by simulation creators, coupled with the inherent biases and limitations within the scouting process, shaped the ultimate outcomes of the simulations. Understanding this interplay is crucial for interpreting simulations not as definitive predictors but as reflections of the prevailing opinions and analytical frameworks prevalent at the time, with a direct dependence on the quality and focus of available scouting information.
8. Post-Draft Performance
The evaluation of post-draft performance provides critical insight into the predictive validity of simulated draft outcomes. Discrepancies between projected potential, as reflected in these simulations, and actual NBA contributions serve as benchmarks for assessing the accuracy of pre-draft analysis methods. This analysis informs future evaluation techniques.
-
Rookie Season Impact
The initial performance of players during their rookie seasons offers an early indication of whether pre-draft simulations accurately gauged their readiness for the professional level. Players who significantly exceeded expectations, demonstrating immediate contributions, suggest successful pre-draft evaluations. Conversely, struggles during the rookie season may indicate an overestimation of a player’s potential in simulations. The relatively slow start to Anthony Bennett’s career immediately cast doubt on the simulations that projected him as the top overall pick. These immediate assessments provide initial feedback on predictive accuracy.
-
Long-Term Career Trajectory
A more comprehensive assessment involves analyzing a player’s career trajectory over several seasons. Consistent performance, skill development, and contributions to team success provide a more reliable measure of a player’s overall value. Players who evolve into impactful starters or key role players validate the initial potential identified in simulations. Conversely, players who fail to develop or struggle to find a niche in the league highlight the limitations of pre-draft projections. Examining the careers of players selected outside the top ten reveals instances where simulations underestimated their long-term potential. Long-term analysis offers a more nuanced perspective than initial impressions.
-
Statistical Validation
Statistical analysis plays a crucial role in quantifying post-draft performance. Metrics such as points per game, rebounds, assists, and advanced statistical measures provide objective measures of a player’s on-court impact. Comparing a player’s actual statistical output to pre-draft projections based on college or international league statistics reveals the accuracy of initial assessments. Players who consistently outperform their projected statistical benchmarks demonstrate successful development and validate the potential identified in simulations, even if their initial draft position was lower than anticipated. This data-driven analysis provides concrete evidence of performance.
-
Role and Fit within Team Systems
A player’s ultimate success is often contingent on his fit within a specific team system and his ability to fulfill a defined role. Simulations frequently struggle to accurately predict team chemistry and individual player development within a particular organizational context. Players who thrive in supportive environments and contribute to team success validate the importance of considering intangible factors beyond raw talent. Conversely, players who struggle to find a defined role or adapt to a team’s system may underperform relative to their pre-draft potential. Assessing a player’s fit within a team context provides valuable insights beyond individual statistics.
Evaluating the post-draft performance of players selected in the 2013 NBA Draft allows for a critical examination of the accuracy and limitations of simulated outcomes. Analyzing rookie season impact, long-term career trajectory, statistical validation, and role within team systems provides a holistic understanding of the factors that contribute to player success. By comparing pre-draft projections with actual NBA contributions, a more refined approach to prospect evaluation can be developed, enhancing the predictive validity of future simulations.
9. Reread Draft Analysis
Revisiting analyses surrounding the 2013 simulated NBA player selection event provides a critical retrospective examination of predictive accuracy and the factors that influenced pre-draft evaluations. This process allows for a more nuanced understanding of both the successes and shortcomings of prospect assessment methodologies prevalent at the time.
-
Evaluation of Initial Projections vs. Actual Outcomes
Revisiting analyses allows direct comparison between projected player outcomes and their actual NBA careers. This reveals discrepancies in scouting accuracy, highlights the influence of unforeseen circumstances (e.g., injuries, coaching changes), and provides valuable insights into the challenges of projecting long-term potential. The divergence between Anthony Bennett’s simulated top pick status and subsequent NBA performance serves as a prime example.
-
Assessment of Analytical Frameworks and Methodologies
A retrospective reread allows for an evaluation of the analytical frameworks employed in pre-draft assessments. Identifying which statistical models, scouting techniques, and qualitative evaluations proved most accurate, and conversely, which were less reliable, informs the development of more robust evaluation methods. Examination of undervalued skills or overlooked traits (e.g., defensive versatility, leadership qualities) helps refine future scouting practices.
-
Identification of Biases and Limitations
Rereading exposes potential biases and limitations inherent in pre-draft analyses. Overemphasis on certain statistical categories, positional stereotypes, or preconceived notions regarding player potential may have skewed projections. A critical re-examination facilitates recognition of these biases and promotes more objective and comprehensive evaluation processes. For example, the evaluation of players from smaller schools or international leagues may have been subject to unconscious biases that rereading can illuminate.
-
Contextualization of Team Strategic Thinking
Revisiting media coverage and team statements surrounding the 2013 draft sheds light on the strategic considerations that influenced team decisions. Understanding the organizational priorities, perceived team needs, and risk tolerance levels of individual franchises helps contextualize the selections made, even when those selections deviated from simulation predictions. Rereading allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the rationale behind each team’s approach.
By revisiting analyses of the 2013 simulated event, a deeper understanding of prospect evaluation and the dynamics of team decision-making emerges. This retrospective examination provides valuable lessons for improving future draft analysis techniques and mitigating potential biases, contributing to a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of player potential.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common inquiries and clarify misunderstandings surrounding pre-event simulations replicating the National Basketball Association’s player selection process for the 2013 season.
Question 1: What is a “2013 mock nba draft” and what purpose did it serve?
It is a simulated prediction of how the NBA draft for that year would unfold. These simulations aimed to forecast which players would be selected by each team and in what order. They served as a tool for analysts, fans, and, potentially, NBA teams to assess player talent and anticipate team strategies.
Question 2: How accurate were the projections generated from pre-event simulations?
Accuracy varied significantly. While some simulations correctly predicted certain high-profile selections, particularly those in the top five, overall accuracy was limited. Simulations often struggled to anticipate team-specific needs, late-round selections, and the impact of unforeseen circumstances like injuries or trades.
Question 3: Did NBA teams actually utilize these simulations in their draft preparation?
It is plausible that some teams incorporated simulated outcomes as one component of their overall draft preparation process. However, it is unlikely that teams relied solely on these simulations. Teams possess internal scouting departments, proprietary data analysis, and conduct private workouts, all of which contribute to their final decision-making process.
Question 4: What factors contributed to the inaccuracies observed in these simulations?
Several factors contributed to inaccuracies, including incomplete information, the difficulty of predicting human behavior, the reliance on subjective assessments, and the inherent unpredictability of player development. Simulations often failed to account for team-specific needs, late-round selections, and unforeseen circumstances like injuries.
Question 5: Were any players consistently undervalued or overvalued in simulations prior to the 2013 NBA Draft?
Certain players were consistently projected at positions that did not align with their eventual NBA success, or lack thereof. Analyzing those discrepancies offers insights into the biases prevalent in pre-draft evaluation and highlights the challenges in accurately assessing long-term potential.
Question 6: Can these simulations be used to draw conclusions about player evaluation methods?
Yes, analyzing the successes and failures of the simulation can offer valuable insights. It allows identification of aspects of player evaluation that are reliable and those that need refinements, leading to improved methodology in future prospect analysis. Moreover, studying them reveal biases prevalent in scouting.
The key takeaway is that simulations served as tools for discussion and speculation but not as definitive predictors of actual results. They are reflections of prevailing opinions and analytical frameworks and should be interpreted with caution.
The next article section examines the legacy and implications of what analysts and teams learned regarding predictive modeling after the 2013 NBA selections.
Insights from the 2013 Mock NBA Draft for Prospect Evaluation
The following observations, gleaned from a retrospective analysis, offer guidance for improving future evaluations of potential National Basketball Association (NBA) players.
Tip 1: Prioritize In-Depth Scouting Beyond Surface Statistics: Reliance on easily quantifiable statistics alone often proves insufficient. Thorough scouting reports detailing a player’s work ethic, basketball IQ, and intangible qualities are crucial for a more complete assessment.
Tip 2: Account for Positional Versatility and Evolving NBA Roles: Projecting players into rigid positional categories can limit their perceived potential. Evaluating a prospect’s ability to adapt to multiple roles and contribute in diverse ways is increasingly important in the modern NBA.
Tip 3: Mitigate the Influence of Groupthink and Media Hype: Public perception, often amplified by media coverage, can distort player valuations. Teams should rely on independent analysis and internal evaluations to avoid being swayed by external narratives.
Tip 4: Emphasize the Importance of Team Fit and Organizational Culture: A player’s potential is maximized when he is placed in a supportive environment that aligns with his skill set and personal attributes. Scouting should extend to assessing a player’s coachability and ability to integrate into a specific team dynamic.
Tip 5: Continuously Refine Analytical Models and Data Integration: Statistical analysis plays an important role in prospect evaluation, but it should not be used in isolation. Incorporating a wider range of data points, including biomechanical assessments, injury history, and psychological evaluations, can improve predictive accuracy.
Tip 6: Track Player Development and Adaptability Over Time: Pre-draft evaluations are only a snapshot in time. Continuously monitoring a player’s progress throughout his collegiate or professional career provides valuable insights into his potential for growth and adaptability.
These insights highlight the multifaceted nature of prospect evaluation and the limitations of relying solely on pre-draft simulations or superficial analysis. A comprehensive approach that incorporates diverse data points, nuanced scouting, and a critical assessment of team fit is essential for identifying future NBA talent.
The subsequent sections will discuss the future of integrating those factors to best benefit player analysis.
2013 Mock NBA Draft
The preceding analysis demonstrates the complexities inherent in projecting professional athletic performance. Examination of the 2013 mock NBA draft reveals the limitations of relying solely on pre-event simulations. While these exercises serve as valuable tools for discussion and strategic planning, their predictive accuracy is demonstrably imperfect. Key factors, including unforeseen injuries, evolving team needs, and the subjective nature of human assessment, contribute to deviations between simulated outcomes and actual player contributions.
The lessons learned from the 2013 mock NBA draft highlight the ongoing need for refinement in prospect evaluation methodologies. Continued research into analytical models, enhanced scouting techniques, and a more nuanced understanding of team dynamics will be essential for improving the accuracy of future projections. Teams, analysts, and fans alike should approach these simulations with a critical eye, recognizing their inherent limitations and embracing a more holistic approach to talent assessment. The true measure of success lies not in predicting the draft order, but in identifying and developing players who can contribute meaningfully to the league, regardless of their projected potential.
