In American football, the 3–4 defense is a defensive alignment consisting of three down linemen and four linebackers.

3–4 base defense

The 3–4 defense declined in popularity over the years, but has found renewed use by modern professional and college football teams. The 3–4 defense is so named because it involves 3 down linemen and 4 linebackers. There are usually 4 defensive backs.

Teams that run the 3-4 include the San Diego Chargers, Kansas City Chiefs, Dallas Cowboys, New York Jets, Green Bay Packers, Baltimore Ravens, Arizona Cardinals, Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots, San Francisco 49ers, Pittsburgh Steelers, Washington Redskins, and Houston Texans. The Cardinals already incorporate the 5–2 defense, an older variation of the 3–4, in some of their defensive schemes. The Miami Dolphins have also incorporated elements of the 3–4 defense into their scheme, under defensive coordinator Mike Nolan, but with the hiring of Kevin Coyle as their new defensive coordinator, the Dolphins will switch to a 4-3 Defense under new coach Joe Philbin. The Ravens run a hybrid defense and occasionally shift to 4–3 schemes during games. With the hiring of defensive coordinator Dom Capers, the Green Bay Packers have switched to a 3–4 defense (2009). With the hiring of Chuck Pagano as their new Head Coach, the Indianapolis Colts might also switch to a 3-4 Defense. The Buffalo Bills installed a 3–4 scheme to begin the 2010 season, but made frequent use of 4–3 sets as the season progressed, and will stick with the 4-3 for 2012 following the signing of free agent defensive end Mario Williams. Under new defensive coordinator Wade Phillips, the Houston Texans have also indicated that they will adopt the 3–4 defensive scheme for the 2011 season.^[2]

Typically, there are two major variations of the 3–4 defense. Both variations are directly related to coverage schemes on obvious passing downs. For the first type, the outside linebackers will rush the quarterback, the great majority of the time. This defensive scheme is largely attributed to Dick LeBeau, although there is some discussion that Joe Collier of the Denver Broncos "Orange Crush" was the actual originator of the "NFL 3–4" . On key situations, the rush linebacker will be sent to cover the flat on the opposite side of the blitzing defensive back; this is the infamous "zone blitz". The other common 3–4 defense is typically associated with the New England Patriots. This scheme requires outside linebackers to have the ability to back pedal and drop into coverage. Of course they do rush the passer at times, it is just that they are much more likely to drop into coverage.^{[citation needed]}|

The Chicago Bears are the only NFL team that have never used the 3–4 as their base defense. Before the 2010 season, the Washington Redskins had also never run a base 3–4, but under the direction of new defensive coordinator Jim Haslett, the Redskins have adopted the 3–4 and its many variants, such as the 2–4–5 and the 1–5–5, based on formations used by the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Conversely, the Steelers have used the 3–4 as their base since 1982, the season after Pro Football Hall of Fame defensive tackle Joe Greene and end L. C. Greenwood retired. In fact, the Steelers were the only NFL team to use the 3–4 defense during the 2001 NFL season, but finished the season as the number one defense in the NFL.^[3] It is believed that the Steelers success with the 3–4 defense is the primary reason why many NFL teams have started returning to the formation.^[4]

The 3–4 defense was originally devised by Bud Wilkinson at the University of Oklahoma in the 1940s. Chuck Fairbanks learned the defense from Wilkinson and is credited with importing it to the NFL.^[5] The 1972 Miami Dolphins were the first team to win a Super Bowl with the 3–4 defense, going undefeated and using number 53, Bob Mathison as a down lineman or rushing linebacker. When the Oakland Raiders defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XV, it marked the first Super Bowl in which both teams used the 3–4 as their base defense. Also notable, the Big Blue Wrecking Crew, the defensive unit for the 1986 New York Giants who won Super Bowl XXI, was a 3–4 defense and featured all-time great Lawrence Taylor as outside linebacker. By the mid-1990s, only a few teams used a 3–4 defense, most notably the Buffalo Bills and Pittsburgh Steelers.^[6]

Defensive line[link]

The defensive line is made up of a nose tackle (NT) and two defensive ends (DEs). Linemen in 3–4 schemes tend to be larger than their 4–3 counterparts to take up more space and guard more territory along the defensive front. 3–4 defensive ends were usually defensive tackles (DTs) when entering at first. They must be strong at the point of attack and are aligned in most cases head-up on an offensive tackle. First and foremost, they must control run gaps. Size and strength become more of a factor for linemen in 3–4 defenses than in 4–3 defenses because they move primarily within the confines of line play and seldom are in space using athletic ability. Ideally 3–4 DEs should weigh 285–300 pounds (129–140 kg) and be able to beat double teams by getting a push.^[8] The 3–4 nose tackle is considered the most physically demanding position in football.^[9] His primary responsibility is to control the “A” gaps, the two openings between the center and guards, and not get pushed back into his linebackers. If a running play comes through one of those gaps, he must make the tackle or control what is called the “jump-through”—the guard or center who is trying to get out to the linebackers. The ideal nose tackle has to be much bigger than 4–3 DTs, weighing around 330 pounds or more. Ted Washington is considered the prototypical nose tackle of this era. “In his prime, Ted Washington was the ideal guy,” says an AFC pro personnel director. “He was huge, had long arms, and you couldn't budge him. He could hold off a 320-pound lineman with one hand and make the tackle with the other.”^[9] Since most college teams run a 4–3 defense, most college DTs are more of a 4–3 tackle than a true nose tackle, which makes good 3–4 NTs hard to find.^[9]

The base position of NT is across from the opposing team's center. This location is usually referred to as zero technique. The two DEs flank the NT and line up off the offensive guards. The location off the offensive guard is usually referred to as three technique.

Some 3–4 teams (such as the Pittsburgh Steelers) use the three down linemen primarily to occupy the offensive linemen. In such systems the defensive linemen are assigned two gaps to defend. The NT is responsible for defending plays which occur in the spaces, or gaps, between the center and guards. Each of those spaces is called an A gap. Flanking the NT, DEs defend the gaps on either side of the tackle he lines up across from. Each guard-tackle gap is a B gap and the space outside each tackle is called a C gap. Other 3–4 teams (such as the San Diego Chargers and the Dallas Cowboys) primarily make each lineman responsible for only one gap.^{[citation needed]}

According to former general manager Randy Mueller, “the 3–4 defensive end is easier to identify and find when it comes to scouting and acquiring personnel,” while 4–3 DEs “are rare and hard to find and therefore very expensive to keep. There is no question that speed pass rushers are very much an impact position on the football field and their cap numbers reflect that. On the other hand, 3–4 defensive ends can be found easier and are much less expensive when it comes to ‘cap dollars’.”^[8]

Linebackers[link]

In a 3–4 defense, four linebackers (LBs) are positioned behind the defensive line. The linebacker unit is made up of two inside linebackers (ILBs) flanked by two outside linebackers (OLBs). The OLBs often line up closer to the line of scrimmage than the ILBs, but may also be positioned at the same depth or deeper in coverage than the ILBs (though this is somewhat rare).

Strengths of the 3–4 include speedy ILBs and OLBs in pursuit of backs in run defense and flexibility to use multiple rushers to confuse the quarterback during passing plays without being forced into man-to-man defense on receivers. Most teams try to disrupt the offense's passing attack by rushing four defenders. In a standard 4–3 alignment, these four rushers are usually the four down linemen. But in a 3–4, the fourth rusher is usually a linebacker, though many teams, such as the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens, use a talented safety to blitz and confuse the coverage, giving them more defensive options in the same 3–4 look. However, since there are four linebackers and four defensive backs, the fourth potential rusher can come from any of eight defensive positions. This is designed to confuse the quarterback's pre-snap defensive read.

A drawback of the 3–4 is that without a fourth lineman to take on the offensive blockers and close the running lanes, both the defensive linemen and the linebackers can be overwhelmed by blocking schemes in the running game. To be effective, 3–4 linebackers need their defensive line to routinely tie up a minimum of four (preferably all five) offensive linemen, freeing them to make tackles. The 3–4 linebackers must be very athletic and strong enough to shed blocks by fullbacks, tight ends, and offensive linemen to get to the running back. In most cases, 3–4 OLBs lead their teams in quarterback sacks.^[11]

Usually, teams that run a 3–4 defense look for college “tweeners”—defensive ends that are too small to play the position in the pros and not quite fluid enough to play outside linebacker in a 4–3 defense—as their 3–4 outside linebacker. The wisdom of this strategy is demonstrated in the career of Harry Carson, who played as a defensive lineman in his college career and then went on to become a Hall of Fame ILB for the New York Giants in the 70's and 80's. According to NFL coach Wade Phillips, 3–4 linebackers “are a little bit cheaper, and you can find more of them,” while “it's harder to find defensive linemen to play a 4–3 and pay for all of them.”^[12]

Secondary[link]

Cornerbacks play similar roles in the 3–4 and 4–3 base defensive schemes.

Depending on the scheme, safeties may play mainly pass coverage or support the run heavily.

The 3–4 defense generally uses four defensive backs. Two of these are safeties, and two of them are cornerbacks. A cornerback's responsibilities vary depending on the type of coverage called. Coverage is simply how the defense will be protecting against the pass. The corners will generally line up 3 to 5 yards off the line of scrimmage, generally trying to "Jam" or interrupt the receivers route within the first 5 yards. A corner will be given one of two ways to defend the pass (with variations that result in more or less the same responsibilities): zone and man-to-man. In zone coverage, the cornerback is responsible for an area on the field. In this case, the corner must always stay downfield of whomever it is covering while still remaining in its zone. Zone is a more relaxed defensive scheme meant to provide more awareness across the defensive secondary while sacrificing tight coverage. As such, the corner in this case would be responsible for making sure nobody gets outside of him, always, or downfield of him, in cases where there is no deep safety help. In man coverage, however, the cornerback is solely responsible for the man across from him, usually the offensive player split farthest out.

The free safety is responsible for reading the offensive plays and covering deep passes. Depending on the defensive call, he may also provide run support. He is positioned 10 to 15 yards behind the line of scrimmage, toward the center of the field. He provides the last line of defense against running backs and receivers who get past the linebackers and cornerbacks. He must be a quick and smart player, capable of making tackles efficiently as well as reading the play and alerting his team of game situations.

The strong safety is usually larger than the free safety and is positioned relatively close to the line of scrimmage. He is often an integral part of the run defense, but is also responsible for defending against a pass; especially against passes to the tight-ends.

NFL teams using a 3–4 defense as of 2012[link]

• Arizona Cardinals
• Baltimore Ravens
• Dallas Cowboys
• Green Bay Packers
• Houston Texans
• Kansas City Chiefs
• Indianapolis Colts
• New England Patriots
• New York Jets
• Pittsburgh Steelers
• San Diego Chargers
• San Francisco 49ers
• Washington Redskins

While Patriots coach Bill Belichick hasn't formally announced a shift to the 4–3, media speculation has been rampant after the team acquired 4–3 specialists like Albert Haynesworth, Mark Anderson, Shaun Ellis, and Andre Carter. The Patriots debuted their 4–3 defense in week one of the 2011 season. Five of New England's six sacks in its week one victory over the Miami Dolphins came from defensive linemen. However, during Super Bowl XLVI, the Patriots began the game using a 3-4 Defense.

While many still consider the Baltimore Ravens' defense a 3–4, it has shifted towards a 4–3 scheme since 2006 when half their games were in a 4-3 base defense. The Ravens' primary pass-rusher, Terrell Suggs, played the majority of his snaps in 2010 as a true defensive end.

With the hiring of Kevin Coyle as their Defensive Coordinator, the Miami Dolphins will make a switch to a 4-3 Defense. Coyle was a defensive assistant under Head Coach Marvin Lewis in Cincinnati, which ran a 4-3 Defense, but new Head Coach Joe Philbin's Packers ran a 3-4 Defense with Dom Capers as Defensive Coordinator and Philbin was the Offensive Coordinator.

On January 31, Bills coach Chan Gailey announced to Sports Illustrated that the Bills will switch to a base 4-3 Defense for the 2012 season, though they will continue to use variances of a 3-4 Defense.

With the hiring of Chuck Pagano as Head Coach, the Indianapolis Colts will go to a 3-4 Defense, which will likely involve moving pass rushers Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis from Defensive End to Outside Linebacker. It is now rumored that Freeney will probably get traded to a team that runs a 4-3 Defense.

References[link]

Kleiber's law,^[1] named after Max Kleiber's biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal's metabolic rate scales to the ¾ power of the animal's mass. Symbolically: if q₀ is the animal's metabolic rate, and M the animal's mass, then Kleiber's law states that q₀ ~ M^¾. Thus a cat, having a mass 100 times that of a mouse, will have a metabolism roughly 31 times greater than that of a mouse. In plants, the exponent is close to 1.

Figure 1. Body size versus metabolic rate for a variety of species^[2]. Originally published in Kleiber (1947).

Biography[link]

Max Kleiber^[3] was born and educated in Zurich, Switzerland. He graduated from the Federal Institute of Technology as an Agricultural Chemist in 1920, earned the ScD degree in 1924, and became a private dozent after publishing his thesis The Energy Concept in the Science of Nutrition.

He came to the Animal Husbandry Department of UC Davis in 1929 to construct respiration chambers and conduct research on energy metabolism in animals. Among his many important achievements, two are especially noteworthy. In 1932 he came to the conclusion that the ¾ power of body weight was the most reliable basis for predicting the basal metabolic rate (BMR) of animals and for comparing nutrient requirements among animals of different size. He also provided the basis for the conclusion that total efficiency of energy utilization is independent of body size. These concepts and several others fundamental for understanding energy metabolism are discussed in Kleiber's book, The Fire of Life published in 1961 and subsequently translated into German, Polish, Spanish, and Japanese.

Reasoning behind the law[link]

Kleiber's law, as many other biological allometric laws, is a consequence of the physics and geometry of animal circulatory systems, according to some authors. Young (i.e., small) organisms respire more per unit of weight than old (large) ones of the same species because of the overhead costs of growth, but small adults of one species respire more per unit of weight than large adults of another species because a larger fraction of their body mass consists of structure rather than reserve; structural mass involves maintenance costs, reserve mass does not.

Value of the exponent[link]

The exponent for Kleiber's law, which is called a power law, was a matter of dispute for many decades. It is still contested by a diminishing number as being ⅔ rather than the more widely accepted ¾. Because the law concerned the capture, use, and loss of energy by a biological system, the system's metabolic rate was, at first, taken to be ⅔, because energy was thought of mostly in terms of heat energy. Metabolic rate was expressed in energy per unit time, specifically calories per second. Two thirds expressed the relation of the square of the radius to the cube of the radius of a sphere, with the volume of the sphere increasing faster than the surface area, with increases in radius. This was purportedly the reason large creatures lived longer than small ones - that is, as they got bigger they lost less energy per unit volume through the surface, as radiated heat.

The problem with ⅔ as an exponent was that it did not agree with a lot of the data. There were many exceptions, and the concept of metabolic rate itself was poorly defined and difficult to measure. It seemed to concern more than rate of heat generation and loss. Since what was being considered was not necessarily Euclidean geometry, the appropriateness of ⅔ as an exponent was questioned. Kleiber himself came to favor ¾, and that is the number favored today by the foremost proponents of the law, despite that ¾ also does not agree with much of the data, and is also troubled with exceptions. Theoretical models presented by Geoffrey West, Brian Enquist, and James Brown,^[4] purport to show how the ¾ observation can emerge from the constraint of how resources are distributed through hierarchical branching networks. Their understanding of an organism's metabolic/respiratory chain is based entirely on blood-flow considerations. Their claims have been repeatedly criticized as mistaken, given that the role of fractal capillary branching is not demonstrated as fundamental to the exponent ¾; and that blood-flow claims severely limit the relevance of the equation to organisms greater than e ^{- 6} (≈ .0025) grams when the simultaneous claim is made that the equation is relevant over 27 orders of magnitude, extending from bacteria, which do not have hearts, to whales or forests.

Concept of metabolic efficiency[link]

This limit to blood flow considerations is problematic when claims are made that the theoretical models also are relevant to things without blood flow, like bacteria and coral. Moreover, despite assurances that the equation models metabolic efficiency, the term metabolic efficiency (ME) appears nowhere in the equation as expounded upon by its major proponents. When the term is added to the exponent (which becomes (4ME-1)/4ME, where ME is metabolic efficiency), and the exponent is ¾ or ⅔, ME is 100 or 89%. Efficiencies like these are not found in nature unless thermogenesis is included as part of metabolic rate. This removes the WBE version of Kleiber's Law, which the metabolic theory of ecology rests on, from any biological relevance whatsoever. The efficiency that is purported to be modeled is actually assumed.

Attempts to understand the metabolic rate of a multi-cellular organism (field metabolic rate, that includes the activity of the organism) are couched in terms of the product between average basal metabolic rate, and number of cells.^[5] This, plus capillary terminal size invariance, leaves the equation open to the criticism that it cannot possibly account for spikes in metabolic rate needed for motor activity. Too much blood would be required. This intimates that as proposed and popularly handled, the equation does not have the relevance to biology claimed, and is based upon assumptions that are not part of the equation, like fractality.

In plants, according to a paper in 2006 in Nature, the exponent of mass is close to 1.^[6][7] Mathematically this is not possible since the implication is that ME is greater than 100% in the case of plants. The key problem is the nature of metabolic energy and the extent of what is considered metabolism. The problem is most clearly noticeable in the unit term for metabolic rate, i.e., calories/s. Calories are a measure of heat energy. This leads to the idea that thermogenesis is part of metabolism, Kleiber's original treatment, and rules out that metabolism is all about chemical energy, not heat energy. The picture is further obfuscated when the idea of respiratory metabolism is introduced to refine and limit the definition of metabolism such that oxygen consumption and synthesis of ATP are its ultimate factors. The data from study of oxygen consumption metabolic rates in cells in vitro suggests that the exponent is not only far less than ¾, but also becomes negative for things less than one gram in size. Furthermore, glycogenesis is excluded from metabolic consideration on this model since glycogenesis is not included in the respiratory chain, and is itself a reduction reaction not strictly dependent upon the proximity of certain molecules and atoms delivered by capillaries and vibrating from Brownian motion. Energy is required for glycogenesis, and the blood does not deliver energy, just the ingredients for endergonic reactions. The energy comes from redox coupling, what ME is all about.

ME amends these problems, and describes the metabolic rate in watts. Metabolic rate becomes the rate at which a biomass recharges so that its degeneration is prevented, and its organization is perpetuated. ME is a ratio of the rate of reduction reactions necessary for the maintenance, growth, replication and behavior of the biomass, to the rate of availability of energy captured and expended by that biomass. ME is a statement of redox coupling efficiency. ME excludes thermogenesis as part of metabolism, consequently. A graph of Kleiber that includes ME, with ME as the X axis, metabolic rate as the Y axis, and a different curve for each mass, reveals a picture of the relation of biomass to metabolic rate that suggests all of evolution took place at less than 45% ME. Furthermore, this graph models the relation between basal metabolic rate and field metabolic rate, where the latter is the rate for the organism while the former is the rate for its cells. The graph clearly depicts that, contrary to WBE and Savage, biomass for an organism has no effect on basal metabolic rate (BMR); that what influences BMR is the ME of the organism, not its mass. The organism determines ME, and that ME is the same for it and for its cells.

The failure of WBE to parse Kleiber to understand the nature of aging is due to their mishandling of its mathematics. This mishandling results from failure to limit considerations of metabolism to strictly electrochemistry, and to exclude heat generation. Both of these things follow from failure to consider the role of variable ME on that biomass. If metabolic rate (MR) is taken as the recharge rate in watts of an electrolytic biomass, then MR is directly related to the longevity of that biomass. The equation, when graphed, suggests that for creatures operating at over 25% ME, the organism lives longer than its cells. What this indicates is that the organism has a source of new cells that are not initially a part of it, undifferentiated stem cells for example, especially in creatures over one gram mass. Aging appears to be the result of antagonism between BMR and FMR (field metabolic rate), given fluctuations in ME. These fluctuations are driven predominantly by alterations in the denominator of the ratio ME, where that denominator represents the availability of food sources.

Current debate[link]

Current discussion and debate in the literature has refrained from consideration of the theoretical foundations for Kleiber's law. The role of thermogenesis in metabolism remains unexplained, in part because Kleiber's law, as originally formulated, was based upon the idea that metabolic energy was entirely related to measurements of heat generation and loss. This appears in the unit of metabolic rate most favored, calories/s rather than watts (as in the version of Kleiber's law that includes ME, where ME is a ratio of redox amperes), and in the limitation of disputation as to whether ME is 89 or 100%. Others [e.g., Kozlowski and Konarzewski, John Speakman] have criticized West, Brown, and Enquist on the point that the size-invariance of capillaries, which is the same from leaves to mammalian blood flow, dooms attempts to account for motor activity as part of metabolism.^[8][9] This is why metabolic rates are almost always associated with the organism at rest, where metabolic rate is figured by the basal rate for the cell rather than for the rate for the organism in its day-to-day life in the field. West et al. claim that Kleiber's law refers to the basal metabolic rate of an organism's cells, not the field metabolic rate of the organism itself, and regard field metabolic rate to be the product of the average basal metabolic rate and number of cells in the organism. Biologists point out that BMR cannot possibly account for motor activity even by this reckoning, and the equation is therefore of limited value either way.

That metabolic efficiency should deviate from the favored high values is not part of the current debate, even though it creates inconsistencies within standard models, especially with regard to the nature of aging and the nature of the metabolic relation between the cell and the organism's mass. The standard versions of the equation's exponent (those that do not consider ME) cannot account for the wide variation in the lifetimes between rodents and birds of similar mass. This inconsistency could be explained simply if rodents had an ME less than 25% whereas birds didn't. Nor can the standard exponent explain why primates live so long when mammals of far greater mass do not live correspondingly longer, e.g., humans vs. whales, or chimpanzees vs. buffaloes. This is a simple matter if ME's are 31% vs. 28% in the first case, and 30% vs. 27% in the second. The relation of cell metabolic rate to organism mass, a contentious subject for proponents of the standard exponent, is modeled as non-existent when ME is considered, appearing instead as the relation of the cell's metabolic rate to the organism's ME, where the ME of the organism is the same as for its cells.

Major proponents of the equation, in the form of 'quarter power scaling', always limit themselves to mass specific metabolic rates, where the mass is one gram. The equation shows that at one gram mass, metabolic rate is the same for all MEs. This is why one gram is favored. It eliminates the role of ME in the equation, and makes the exponent ¾ or ⅔ at least plausible to the initiate concerned with laboratory rather than mathematical study of metabolism. Gram specific masses limit the understanding of metabolism to the in vitro level, a limitation perpetuated by the unavailability of in vivo metabolic measuring equipment aside from oxygen-use and temperature monitoring. Attention to fundamental principles of the electrochemical nature and dependence of biomass, is deflected in favor of continuing disputation about the equation's relevance, the appropriateness of Euclidean considerations in a fractal world of capillary fluid dynamics, and the whispered depths to its secrets with regard to aging and to cancer, secrets unattainable so far. The inclusion of the term ME in the exponent allows for the energetic basis of biological organization to be modeled, where replication is biomass response to fluctuations in energy availability, and can be seen from bacterial multiplication and quorum sensing, to the relation between mating strategies and food supply in large mammals.

See also[link]

• Allometric law
• Constructal law
• Evolutionary physiology
• Metabolic theory of ecology
• Scaling law

References[link]

External links[link]

• Kleiber bio - UC Davis
• Wang Z, O'Connor TP, Heshka S, Heymsfield SB (November 2001). "The reconstruction of Kleiber's law at the organ-tissue level". J Nutr. 131 (11): 2967–70. PMID 11694627. 
• Rau AR (September 2002). "Biological scaling and physics". J Biosci. 27 (5): 475–8. DOI:10.1007/BF02705043. PMID 12381870. 
• Of Mice and Elephants
• New Clues to Why Size Equals Destiny

v t e Modelling ecosystems – trophic components General Abiotic component Abiotic stress Behaviour Biogeochemical cycle Biomass Biotic component Biotic stress Carrying capacity Competition Ecosystem Ecosystem ecology Ecosystem model Keystone species List of feeding behaviours Metabolic theory of ecology Productivity Producers Autotrophs Chemosynthesis Chemotrophs Foundation species Mixotrophs Myco-heterotrophy Mycotroph Organotrophs Photoheterotrophs Photosynthesis Photosynthetic efficiency Phototrophs Primary nutritional groups Primary production Consumers Apex predator Bacterivore Carnivores Chemoorganotroph Foraging Generalist and specialist species Intraguild predation Herbivores Heterotroph Heterotrophic nutrition Insectivore Mesopredator release hypothesis Omnivores Optimal foraging theory Predation Prey switching Decomposers Chemoorganoheterotrophy Decomposition Detritivores Detritus Microorganisms Archaea Bacteriophage Environmental microbiology Lithoautotroph Lithotrophy Microbial cooperation Microbial ecology Microbial food web Microbial intelligence Microbial loop Microbial mat Microbial metabolism Phage ecology Food webs Biomagnification Ecological efficiency Ecological pyramid Energy flow Food chain Trophic level Example webs Cold seeps Hydrothermal vents Intertidal Kelp forests Lakes North Pacific Subtropical Gyre Rivers San Francisco Estuary Soil Tidal pool Processes Ascendency Bioaccumulation Cascade effect Climax community Competitive exclusion principle Consumer-resource systems Copiotrophs Dominance Ecological network Ecological succession Energy quality Energy Systems Language f-ratio Feed conversion ratio Feeding frenzy Mesotrophic soil Nutrient cycle Oligotroph Paradox of the plankton Trophic cascade Trophic mutualism Trophic state index Defense/counter Animal coloration Antipredator adaptations Camouflage Herbivore adaptations to plant defense Mimicry Plant defense against herbivory Predator avoidance in schooling fish

v t e Modelling ecosystems – other components Population ecology Abundance Allee effect Depensation Ecological yield Effective population size Intraspecific competition Logistic function Malthusian growth model Maximum sustainable yield Overpopulation in wild animals Overexploitation Population cycle Population dynamics Population modeling Population size Predator–prey equations Recruitment Resilience Small population size Stability Species Biodiversity Density-dependent inhibition Ecological effects of biodiversity Ecological extinction Endemic species Flagship species Gradient analysis Indicator species Introduced species Invasive species Latitudinal gradients in species diversity Minimum viable population Neutral theory Occupancy-abundance relationship Population viability analysis Priority effect Rapoport's rule Relative abundance distribution Relative species abundance Species diversity Species homogeneity Species richness Species distribution Species-area curve Umbrella species Species interaction Antibiosis Biological interaction Commensalism Community ecology Ecological facilitation Interspecific competition Mutualism Storage effect Spatial ecology Biogeography Cross-boundary subsidy Ecocline Ecotone Ecotype Disturbance Edge effect Foster's rule Habitat fragmentation Ideal free distribution Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis Island biogeography Landscape ecology Landscape epidemiology Landscape limnology Metapopulation Patch dynamics r/K selection theory Source–sink dynamics Niche Ecological niche Ecological trap Ecosystem engineer Environmental niche modelling Guild Habitat Limiting similarity Niche apportionment models Niche construction Niche differentiation Other networks Assembly rules Bateman's principle Bioluminescence Ecological collapse Ecological debt Ecological deficit Ecological energetics Ecological indicator Ecological threshold Ecosystem diversity Emergence Extinction debt Kleiber's law Liebig's law of the minimum Marginal value theorem Thorson's rule Xerosere Other Allometry Alternative stable state Balance of nature Biological data visualization Constructal theory Ecocline Ecological economics Ecological footprint Ecological forecasting Ecological humanities Ecological stoichiometry Ecopath Ecosystem based fisheries Endolith Evolutionary ecology Functional ecology Industrial ecology Macroecology Microecosystem Natural environment Systems ecology Theoretical ecology List of ecology topics

Jason Kidd

Kidd with the Mavericks
No. 2 – Dallas Mavericks
Guard
Personal information
Born	(1973-03-23) March 23, 1973 (age 39) San Francisco, California
Nationality	American
High school	St. Joseph Notre Dame
Listed height	6 ft 4 in (1.93 m)
Listed weight	209 lb (95 kg)
Career information
College	California (1992–1994)
NBA Draft	1994 / Round: 1 / Pick: 2nd overall
Selected by the Dallas Mavericks
Pro career	1994–present
League	NBA
Career history
1994–1996	Dallas Mavericks
1996–2001	Phoenix Suns
2001–2008	New Jersey Nets
2008–present	Dallas Mavericks
Career highlights and awards
NBA Champion (2011) NBA co-Rookie of the Year (1995) 10× NBA All-Star (1996, 1998, 2000–2004, 2007–2008, 2010) 5× All-NBA First Team (1999–2002, 2004) All-NBA Second Team (2003) 4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1999, 2001–2002, 2006) 5× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2000, 2003–2005, 2007) 5× NBA assists leader (1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004) NBA All-Rookie First Team (1995) Skills Challenge Champion (2003) NBA Sportsmanship Award (2012) Naismith Prep Player of the Year (1992)

Jason Frederick Kidd (born March 23, 1973) is an American professional basketball point guard who plays for the Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association. Raised in Oakland, California, Kidd played college basketball at the University of California, Berkeley and was drafted second overall by the Dallas Mavericks in the first round of the 1994 NBA Draft. Then, from 1996 to 2001, Kidd played for the Phoenix Suns and later for the New Jersey Nets from 2001 to 2008. In the middle of the 2007–2008 season, Kidd was traded back to Dallas. Along with his three NBA Finals appearances including a championship win in 2011, Kidd won two Olympic gold medals with the US national team in 2000 and 2008.

He led his former team, the New Jersey Nets to two consecutive NBA Finals appearances (2002 and 2003) before winning in 2011 with Dallas. His on-court versatility also makes him a regular triple-double threat, and he is in third place all-time for regular season triple-doubles in the NBA with a career total of 107^[1] and second in playoffs triple-doubles with a career total of 11.^[2]

Early life[link]

This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2008)

Kidd was born in San Francisco, California and raised in an upper middle class section of Oakland, California. His father Steve was African-American, and his mother Anne is Irish-American. The oldest of 6 children, Kidd attended St. Paschal Baylon school in the Oakland Hills. As a youth, Kidd was highly scouted for AAU teams and tourneys, garnering various all-star and MVP awards. He frequented the city courts of Oakland, where he often found himself pitted against future NBA All-Star Gary Payton. The two still reminisce about the playing days of their youth. During his youth, Kidd also excelled at soccer, baseball as well as other sports.

At St. Joseph Notre Dame High School in Alameda, California, under the guidance of coach Frank LaPorte, Kidd led the Pilots to back-to-back state championships, averaging 25 points, 10 assists, 7 rebounds and 7 steals his senior season. During that year, he also received a host of individual honors, including the Naismith Award as the nation's top high school player, and was named Player of the Year by PARADE and USA Today. The all-time prep leader in assists (1,155) and the state's seventh-best career scorer (2,661 points), Kidd was voted California Player of the Year for the second time and also a McDonald's All-American. On January 31, 2012, Kidd was honored as one of the 35 Greatest McDonald's All Americans.^[3]

After a highly publicized recruiting process, Kidd shocked many fans and pundits alike by choosing to attend the nearby University of California, Berkeley—a school that was coming off a 10–18 season and hadn't won a conference title since 1960—over a number of top-ranked collegiate programs including the University of Arizona, the University of Kentucky, the University of Kansas, and The Ohio State University.

College[link]

During his first year at California, Kidd averaged 13.0 points, 7.7 assists, 4.9 rebounds, and 3.8 steals per game which earned him national Freshman of the Year honors and a spot on the All Pac-10 Team along with teammate and fellow freshman Danny Anderson, making them the fifth and sixth newcomer in conference history to do so. His 110 steals broke both the NCAA record for most steals by a freshman and set a school record for most steals in a season, while his 220 assists that season also was a school record. His play also was a key factor in the resurgence of Cal Basketball and helped The Golden Bears earn an NCAA Tournament bid, where they upset two-time defending national champion Duke in the second round of that tournament before losing to Kansas in the Sweet 16.

Kidd continued his success as a sophomore, tallying averages of 16.7 points, 6.9 rebounds, 3.1 steals and 9.1 assists, breaking his previous school record for most assists in a season with 272, while also leading the nation in that category. He was also selected a First Team All-American, the first Cal player to be so named since 1968, as well as Pac-10 Player of the Year, becoming the first sophomore to receive that honor. The Golden Bears would make the NCAA Tournament again as a 5 seed, but would be upset in the first round by Dick Bennett's twelve-seeded Wisconsin–Green Bay team 61–57. Kidd was also named a finalist for both the Naismith and Wooden Awards as college basketball's top player and subsequently opted to enter the NBA Draft in 1994. In 2004, Cal retired Kidd's number 5 jersey.

NBA career[link]

Dallas Mavericks (1994–1996)[link]

Kidd was selected as the second pick overall by the Dallas Mavericks, behind Glenn Robinson of Purdue, and just ahead of Duke's versatile swingman Grant Hill. In his first year he averaged 11.7 points, 5.4 rebounds, 7.7 assists, and led the NBA in triple doubles, sharing 1995 NBA Rookie of the Year honors with Grant Hill of the Detroit Pistons.^[4] The year before the Mavericks drafted Jason Kidd, they ended a season with the worst record in the NBA at 13–69. After Kidd's first season with the Mavericks, their record improved to 36–46 which was the best improvement in the NBA that season. Kidd also was voted in as a starter in the 1996 All-Star Game. In his first two years with the Mavericks, the move most people associated him with is "the Baseball pass". Kidd was a member of the "Three J's" in Dallas along with Jim Jackson and Jamal Mashburn. However, that plan did not come to fruition, as all three found themselves playing for other teams shortly thereafter.

Phoenix Suns (1996–2001)[link]

Kidd was traded to the Phoenix Suns with Tony Dumas and Loren Meyer for Michael Finley, A. C. Green, and Sam Cassell during the 1996–97 season. Kidd made the All-Star Game three times (1998, 2000, & 2001) with the Suns. In 2001, after five seasons in Phoenix in which the team made the playoffs each year under Kidd, he was traded, along with Chris Dudley, to the New Jersey Nets for Stephon Marbury, Johnny Newman, and Soumaila Samake.

New Jersey (2001–2008)[link]

Kidd shooting a free throw when he was a Net.

The 2001–02 season saw Kidd lead the Nets to a surprising 52–30 finish, and marked one of his best all-around seasons as he finished second to the Spurs' Tim Duncan in MVP voting. Many have argued that Kidd deserved to win the award because of his impact in New Jersey—transforming the Nets from perennial league doormats into championship contenders seemingly in the space of a single training camp. His contribution to the Nets during his first season in New Jersey was huge, and resulted in one of the greatest turnarounds in NBA history. He was also fortunate to join the team when he did, as the team reaped the benefits of the newly healthy Kenyon Martin, Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn; along with the trading of Eddie Griffin for Richard Jefferson, Jason Collins, and Brandon Armstrong.

Under Kidd's guidance, the young Nets team prospered through the playoffs and ended up advancing all the way to the Eastern Conference title and the franchise's first-ever appearance in the NBA Finals. However, New Jersey's season would end without an improbable NBA crown, as Kidd and the Nets were swept in four games by Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant's Los Angeles Lakers. New Jersey enjoyed another stellar season under the helm of Kidd's leadership in the 2002–03 NBA season, during which the team finished 49–33 and reached the NBA Finals once again, only to succumb to Tim Duncan's San Antonio Spurs in six games. He had his highest scoring season with 18.7 points per game^[5] and led the league in assists with 8.9 per game.^[6]

On July 1, 2004, Kidd underwent microfracture surgery to repair a damaged knee. He made a full recovery and returned to the court in December of that year, during which the Nets acquired star swingman Vince Carter from the Toronto Raptors. With the Nets hanging on the prospect of missing the playoffs for the first time since 2001 and with Jefferson injured, Carter and Kidd combined to fuel the team to a late regular-season surge that enabled them to inch past the Cleveland Cavaliers for the eighth and final playoff berth in the East. However, their season would come to an end early as they fell in four games to top-seeded Miami in the first round.

In 2005–06, Kidd averaged 13.3 points, 7.3 rebounds, and 8.4 assists (5th in the league). On February 1, 2007, Kidd was named a reserve for the NBA All-Star game along with teammate Vince Carter. However, Kidd missed the game because of a strained back and was replaced on the roster by Joe Johnson.^[7]

On April 7, 2007, Kidd and Carter became the first teammates to record triple-doubles in the same game since Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen did it in 1989 for the Chicago Bulls. Kidd finished with 10 points, 16 rebounds, and 18 assists. In the 2006–07 postseason, Kidd notched his 10th postseason career triple-double on April 27, 2007 in Game 3 against the Toronto Raptors. He recorded 16 points on 50% field goal shooting, a playoff career high 19 assists, 16 rebounds, 3 steals, and a block, as the Nets defeated the Raptors 102–89.^[8] He tied Larry Bird for second All-time in career postseason triple-doubles.^[9] In the first round of the postseason, Kidd averaged 14.0 points, 13.2 assists, 10.0 rebounds, and 2.0 steals, as the Nets defeated the Raptors in six games. He joined Wilt Chamberlain and Magic Johnson as the only players in NBA history to average a triple-double in multiple playoff series.^[10] In Game 3 of the second round in the 2006–07 playoffs, Kidd recorded his 11th postseason triple-double with 23 points, 14 assists and 13 rebounds, breaking the tie with Larry Bird for second place on the All-Time career list.^[2] For the postseason, Kidd averaged 14.6 points, 10.9 assists and 10.9 rebounds in twelve playoff games.^[11] He became the second player in NBA history to average a triple-double for an entire postseason.^[12]

In the 2007–08 NBA season, Kidd became the third player to get a triple-double in three straight games since 1989. He did so after he logged his 97th career triple-double in a 115-99 loss to the Charlotte Bobcats.^[13] Kidd was voted by the fans to start in the 2008 All-Star game in New Orleans as a guard along with Dwyane Wade.

After that season Kidd had been mentioned in trade rumors, notably to the Los Angeles Lakers, but the deal fell through when the Lakers refused to give up their young center Andrew Bynum. On January 28, 2008, Kidd revealed that his agent had been talking to the Nets' front office about a trade. On February 19, 2008, Kidd was traded^[14] to the Dallas Mavericks, the team that originally drafted him.

Return to Dallas (2008–present)[link]

Kidd drives to the basket during a game against the Minnesota Timberwolves.

On February 13, 2008, the Dallas Mavericks and New Jersey Nets reached an agreement on a trade to send Kidd and Malik Allen to Dallas for Devin Harris, Devean George, Jerry Stackhouse, DeSagana Diop, Maurice Ager, two first-round drafts picks (in 2008 and 2010), and $3 million, but the trade fell through when George invoked his (Early) Bird rights, as was stipulated in his contract at the time.^[15][16] The trade was retooled, with Trenton Hassell replacing George, and Keith Van Horn, who had agreed to come out of retirement, replacing Stackhouse, because NBA officials informed the Mavericks that if Stackhouse were to be included in the deal, he could not re-sign with the team if the Nets chose to buy out his contract.^{[citation needed]} Antoine Wright was also added to the retooled trade proposal (the two teams originally agreed on a separate deal that would send Wright to the Mavericks for a 2008 second-round pick, but were ultimately able include him in the Kidd deal).^[17] On February 19, 2008, Kidd was officially traded to the Mavericks along with Allen and Wright for Van Horn (via a sign and trade deal), Harris, Diop, Hassell, Ager, $3 million, Ryan Anderson (the future 2008 first round pick), and the 2010 first round pick.^[18][19]

On July 5, 2009 Kidd verbally committed to re-signing with the Mavericks after being pursued heavily by the New York Knicks. The three-year deal is reportedly worth more than $25 million, all of it fully guaranteed.^[20]

On Halloween of 2010 against the Clippers, Kidd sank a 75 foot shot at the halftime buzzer.

On November 12, 2010, Kidd dished out his 11,000th career assist, an alley-oop dunk to teammate Tyson Chandler.

Jason Kidd won the NBA Championship with the Dallas Mavericks on June 12, 2011. It was the first championship in his career.

On February 20, 2012, Kidd collected his 2,515th career steal (passing Michael Jordan) making him second all-time in steals.

Milestones[link]

On April 16, 2008, Kidd reached a new career milestone, achieving his 100th career triple-double in the final regular-season game with the Dallas Mavericks that year against the New Orleans Hornets. In the 2008–09 season, Kidd became just the fourth player in NBA history to reach the 10,000 assist milestone and is now the only player in NBA history with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists and 7,000 rebounds. On April 5, 2009, Kidd passed Magic Johnson at third on the all-time assist list in a convincing 140–116 victory over the Phoenix Suns. Kidd scored 19 points with 6–8 shooting and a season high 20 assists, giving him a total of 10,142 career assists. On November 26, 2009, Kidd moved into 2nd place on the all-time assists list in a win against the Houston Rockets, surpassing Mark Jackson on the list. Kidd currently holds the record for most games played amongst active players. On February 20, 2012, Kidd passed Michael Jordan on the all-time steals list to become number 2 behind John Stockton.^[21]

USA Basketball[link]

Jason Kidd's first participation in USA basketball came after his first season at Berkeley. He was the only freshman chosen to take part in Team USA's 10-member team. The team played five games in Europe and finished with a record of 3–2. Kidd tied for team highs in assists per game with 4.0, and steals per game with 1.4. He also had averages of 8.4 points per game, and 4.2 rebounds per game.

Kidd's next stint with USA basketball came in 1999 where he participated in the USA Olympic Qualifying Tournament. The team finished with an undefeated record of 10–0 resulting in a gold medal and earning a berth at the 2000 Olympics. Kidd averaged 7.4 PPG, 6.8 APG, 4.4 RPG, 2.7 SPG and again led the team in APG and SPG.

In 2000, Kidd was appointed as one of Team USA's tri-captains for the 2000 Olympics at Sydney. Kidd again led the team to an undefeated record of 8–0 which resulted in team USA winning the gold medal at the Olympic games. Kidd had averages of 6.0 ppg, 5.3 rpg, and had team highs of 4.4 apg, and 1.1 spg. Kidd also had a FG% of 51.6 and shot 50% from 3-point range.

In November 2002, Kidd was selected to participate in the 2002 USA Basketball Men's World Championship Team. However, he had to withdraw from the team due to an injury.

Kidd came back the next year and participated at the 2003 FIBA Americas Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Puerto Rico. Kidd again led the team to a record of 10–0, bringing home the gold medal and a berth at the 2004 Olympics. Kidd started all 10 games and had averages of 3.4 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, and 1.2 spg.

However, Jason Kidd again had to withdraw from the 2004 Olympic team due to another injury.

In 2007, Kidd participated in the FIBA Americas Championship 2007. Kidd helped the team to a 10–0 record where he brought home another gold medal and a berth at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China. Kidd had averages of 1.8 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, and 1.3 spg. He also shot 60% from the field and 62.5% from 3-point distance. Kidd led the entire tournament with assist-to-turnover ratio of 9.20. With Kidd's help team USA averaged 116.7 ppg, and defeated their opponents by a margin of 39.5 ppg.

In 2008, Kidd participated in the 2008 Olympics where the team yet again went undefeated in winning their first gold medal since the 2000 Olympics.^[22] The team, given the "Redeem team" moniker because of failures in the 2002 FIBA World Championship and 2004 Summer Olympics, were once again crowned to be the best team in world basketball.

Jason Kidd has an impressive resume in USA basketball. In his professional career, he has an undefeated record of 56–0 including exhibition games. He has brought home five gold medals: three from Olympic qualifying tournaments, one from the 2000 Sydney Olympics, and one from the 2008 Beijing Olympics.^[23]

Personal life[link]

In January 2001, Jason Kidd was arrested and pleaded guilty to a domestic abuse charge for assaulting his wife Joumana in anger. As part of his plea, Kidd was ordered to attend anger management classes for six months. Kidd completed the mandatory counseling and continued to attend on his own, and it was reported that Kidd had given up alcohol. He and his wife were both active in their church and were thought to have completely reconciled. On January 9, 2007, Jason Kidd filed for divorce against his wife, citing "extreme cruelty" during their relationship. Kidd contended intense jealousy, paranoia, and the threat of "false domestic abuse claims" to the police as reasons for the divorce. On February 15, 2007 Joumana Kidd filed a counterclaim for divorce,^[24] claiming that the NBA star—among countless instances of abuse—"broke her rib and damaged her hearing by smashing her head into the console of a car". The couple have three children (Trey Jason (T.J.), and twins Miah and Jazelle).^[25]

On September 10, 2011, Kidd married Porschla Coleman.^[26] Porschla is a former model and has taken over the reins of the Jason Kidd Foundation.^[27]

NBA career statistics[link]

Regular season[link]

Playoffs[link]

NBA highlights[link]

• NBA Champion: 2011
• 10-time NBA All-Star: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010
• 6-time All-NBA:

• First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
• Second Team: 2003

• 9-time All-Defensive Selection:

• First Team : 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006
• Second Team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007

• NBA co-Rookie of the Year: 1995 (with Grant Hill)
• NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1995
• NBA All-Star Skills Challenge champion: 2003
• 5-time NBA regular-season leader, assists per game: 1999 (10.8), 2000 (10.1), 2001 (9.8), 2003 (8.9), 2004 (9.2)
• 3-time NBA regular-season leader, total assists: 1999 (539), 2001 (753), 2003 (711)
• NBA regular-season leader, total steals: 2002 (175)

Other[link]

• 1992 Naismith High School Player of the Year
• USA Today and PARADE 1992 National High School Player of the Year
• 1994 Pac-10 Player of the Year
• Named First Team All-American as a sophomore at UC Berkeley.
• Member of the 2000 U.S.A. Dream Team which won gold at the Sydney Olympics.
• Member of the 2003 U.S.A. Basketball Men's Senior National Team.
• Named to the USA Today All-time All-USA Second Team in 2003.
• Featured on the cover of NBA Live 2003.
• University of California jersey (5) retired in 2004.
• Gold Medal with Team USA, Tournament of Americas Olympic Qualifiers
• Named USA Basketball's 2007 Male Athlete of the Year.
• Gold Medal with Team USA, 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing.
• Ranked No.28 in SLAM Magazine's 2009 revision of the top 50 greatest players of all time (published in the August 2009 issue)^[28]

See also[link]

• List of National Basketball Association career assists leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career steals leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career turnovers leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career 3-point scoring leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career playoff assists leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career playoff steals leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career playoff turnovers leaders
• List of National Basketball Association career playoff 3-point scoring leaders
• List of National Basketball Association players with 1000 games played
• List of National Basketball Association players with most assists in a game
• List of oldest and youngest National Basketball Association players

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Jason Kidd

• Official website
• Jason Kidd at NBA.com
• ESPN Profile

Lee Ha Yi (Hangul: 이하이, born September 23, 1996), also known by her stage name Lee Hi, is a South Korean singer. She is known as the SBS's "Survival K-Pop Star" runner-up of 2011. Her debut single "1,2,3,4", was released on October 28, 2012 and reached #1 with the first-week sales of 667,549 downloads.^[1][2] Following the launch of her solo career, Lee Hi is expected to debut as a member of forthcoming girl group SuPearls managed by the same entertainment agency.^[3]

Biography[link]

Lee Ha Yi was born on September 23, 1996, and from Bucheon. She attended Sukchun Elementary School and Sangil Middle School, where she was a student of popular youtuber, Simon Stawski. She is currently in School of performing Arts in Seoul.^[2]

Career[link]

In 2012, Lee Hi finished as the runner-up of Survival K-Pop Star,^[4] and was scouted out by YG Entertainment CEO, Yang Hyun-suk.^[5]

On October 8, Epik High released their first song in about three years entitled "It's Cold" featuring Lee Ha Yi.^[3]

On October 29, Lee Hi's new single "1,2,3,4" was released. The song was written by Masta Wu and produced by CHOICE37 and Lydia Paek. The music video was directed by director Han Sa Min, who also did 2NE1‘s “Lonely” and Big Bang’s “Blue” and “Monster."^[6] The song reached #1 on all the main music charts.^[7] The song ranked #1 for five consecutive days.^[8] She also dominated montly charts.^[9][10] She has ranked on the top spot 11 times on the hourly real time charts, which set a record for female soloists in 2012^[11] She performed "1,2,3,4" on Inkigayo on November 4.^[12]

Her second single, “Scarecrow”, was released on November 22, 2012.^[13]

In 2013, Her debut album will be released in March.^[14]

Discography[link]

Singles[link]

Featured singles[link]

K-pop Star Tracks[link]