[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 17 2008, 08:03 AM, said:

it seemed to me that he slowed down a lot by 1985 as he appeared to have put on weight and wasn't mobile anymore.

Theismann was having a so-so year in 1985, but his two best seasons in yardage, touchdown passes, and passer rating were 1983 and 1984.

[Clark Heins]

The title of this topic is "Comeback Wins". Apparently few people understand the meaning of what a comeback win is. A comeback win can only be achieved in two ways 1. The winning team nust be trailing the losing team entering the fourth quarter. 2. The winning team must fall behind at some point during the fourth quarter before rallying for the win.

TIES: If a game should end in a tie, it is simply a tie---it cannot be classified as a comeback win. If the team trailing at the end of three quarters should tie the game in the fourth quarter, but never lead before losing, the winning team cannot be credited with a comeback win. Under these circumstances, the winning team cannot even be credited with a "comeback" because they never trailed in the fourth quarter. The term "comeback" is a misnomer in these cases.

Previously, I had pointed out that both the Cowboys and the Patriots had padded the "comeback" totals of Roger Staubach and Tom Brady (also Drew Bledsoe) by combining legitimate comeback wins with games in which the losing team tied the game in the fourth quarter without ever leading the game at any point iin the fourth quarter. It appears that the Denver Broncos did exactly the same thing with John Elway and his record setting 47 "comebacks".

I happened to be looking at the HOF web-site under "Pro Football History". It lists all of the "record 47 fourth quarter come-from-behind comebacks" that Elway supposedly achieved. This material was provided to the HOF by the Broncos. Apparently, the statisticians at the HOF never questioned this material. Apparently, no one has ever questioned Elway's totals!

Well, I did. I knew that Elway had one tie game on his resume---against Green Bay in 1987. That, obviously, could not be classified as a comeback win. The rest of it astounded me. Eleven of the games were games in which the losing team rallied from behind in the fourth quarter to tie the Broncos before eventually losing. The Broncos were never behind at any time during the fourth quarter of these eleven games! Additionally, as the information clearly pointed out, Elway was injured and replaced by Gary Kubiak in the winning drive against the Seahawks on Dec. 20, 1985. Even though Elway was mostly responsible for the comeback win, Kubiak was the QB when the game was decided. Kubiak gets credit for the comeback win, not Elway.

What does this mean? John Elway had 34 comeback wins (12 in road games; 22 at home) during his career---not 47. That also means that the record for comeback wins belongs to Dan Marino who had 37---that is if the Dolphins didn't also pad his record. I don't think they did as they seemed specifically to separate legitimate comebacks (37) from games that were tied by the losing team in the fourth quarter, but in which the Dolphins were never behind (13).

[Bob Gill]

>Theismann was having a so-so year in 1985, but his two best seasons in yardage, touchdown passes, and passer rating were 1983 and 1984.


It was worse than a so-so year, to my mind. I thought he was finished before the broken leg.

The problem, as I saw it, was not with his legs or anything, but that his arm suddenly deteriorated -- like a pitcher "losing a foot off his fastball." As a result, the Redskins didn't have much of a deep threat any more, and defenses clogged the shorter routes; it seemed like half of Theismann's passes in 1985 were thrown into double coverage.

Not to sound callous, but from the standpoint of the Redskins as a team, I think his broken leg wasn't a bad thing. A year later, with Jay Schroeder having his best season in Washington, the Redskins had what I consider the second-best team in the NFL. (Unfortunately, the best team was also in their division, and beat them three times in a row.) I don't think that would've been remotely possible if Theismann had still been there.

Interestingly enough, I saw the exact same scenario played out when the Redskins brought in Mark Brunell back in 2004. To be fair, Brunell did have a good stretch of about 10 games in 2005, right after Santana Moss arrived, but for the rest of three seasons he looked just like a replay of Theismann in 1985.

[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 18 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

The title of this topic is "Comeback Wins". Apparently few people understand the meaning of what a comeback win is. A comeback win can only be achieved in two ways 1. The winning team nust be trailing the losing team entering the fourth quarter. 2. The winning team must fall behind at some point during the fourth quarter before rallying for the win.

TIES: If a game should end in a tie, it is simply a tie---it cannot be classified as a comeback win. If the team trailing at the end of three quarters should tie the game in the fourth quarter, but never lead before losing, the winning team cannot be credited with a comeback win. Under these circumstances, the winning team cannot even be credited with a "comeback" because they never trailed in the fourth quarter. The term "comeback" is a misnomer in these cases.

Previously, I had pointed out that both the Cowboys and the Patriots had padded the "comeback" totals of Roger Staubach and Tom Brady (also Drew Bledsoe) by combining legitimate comeback wins with games in which the losing team tied the game in the fourth quarter without ever leading the game at any point iin the fourth quarter. It appears that the Denver Broncos did exactly the same thing with John Elway and his record setting 47 "comebacks".

I happened to be looking at the HOF web-site under "Pro Football History". It lists all of the "record 47 fourth quarter come-from-behind comebacks" that Elway supposedly achieved. This material was provided to the HOF by the Broncos. Apparently, the statisticians at the HOF never questioned this material. Apparently, no one has ever questioned Elway's totals!

Well, I did. I knew that Elway had one tie game on his resume---against Green Bay in 1987. That, obviously, could not be classified as a comeback win. The rest of it astounded me. Eleven of the games were games in which the losing team rallied from behind in the fourth quarter to tie the Broncos before eventually losing. The Broncos were never behind at any time during the fourth quarter of these eleven games! Additionally, as the information clearly pointed out, Elway was injured and replaced by Gary Kubiak in the winning drive against the Seahawks on Dec. 20, 1985. Even though Elway was mostly responsible for the comeback win, Kubiak was the QB when the game was decided. Kubiak gets credit for the comeback win, not Elway.

What does this mean? John Elway had 34 comeback wins (12 in road games; 22 at home) during his career---not 47. That also means that the record for comeback wins belongs to Dan Marino who had 37---that is if the Dolphins didn't also pad his record. I don't think they did as they seemed specifically to separate legitimate comebacks (37) from games that were tied by the losing team in the fourth quarter, but in which the Dolphins were never behind (13).

To give you due credit, Clark, you have indeed defined what you mean when you say "comeback win." I'll even agree that to call a team a comeback when all that happened is the opponent tied the game is the height of silliness. That's not to say that the whole idea isn't silly, just that to include ties is doubly silly.

What is wrong with this idea? Well first of all, setting the beginning of the fourth quarter is an arbitrary starting point. Why is that better than the second half, the final twenty minutes, or the last ten? It isn't. The only thing choosing that point in the game has going for it is that you can take the break to go to the bathroom and stop by the kitchen to pick up another beer so you'll be ready to cheer the possible comeback.

An even more serious problem with the scheme is including any trailing -- by one, or two, or five points -- as a score that can spark a comeback. Come on! If your team trails by two points entering the fourth quarter, do you really think in terms of "comeback"? Comebacks are for when you're in deep trouble. If you're down by two early in the fourth quarter, the game is in the breach. And if you declare a potential comeback when trailing by two, suppose you kick a field goal and your opponent turns around and scored three unanswered touchdowns. Then he gets a comeback.

Obviously the silliest part of "comeback wins" is that you credit one man -- part of the offense -- with the comeback. Let's compare that with baseball's win-loss record for pitchers. A pitcher's job is to keep the other team from scoring; he's a defensive player. Naturally, the other team does end up scoring some runs most of the time, but if your pitcher gives up fewer runs than your offense gets, he'll get a win. According to that, any win-loss mark in football should go to whoever calls the defensive signals. Maybe that actually makes more sense than to credit the quarterback. After all the ability to score points is only partly due to the quarterback, but the ability to hold down an opponent's scoring is totally the job of the defense.

Unless we want to consider special teams.

[BD Sullivan]

This debate is reminiscent of the grumbling from roughly 30 years ago (generally by the likes of Dick Young who complained) about the phoniness of Fran Tarkenton's stats when he got credit for a long TD pass. The gripe was that, most of the time, all Tark did was toss a dump off pass to Chuck Foreman (or others) and said receiver would then dash 50+ yards for a touchdown. Somebody had to get the ball to Foreman et al, so why shouldn't that person get credit for it?

BTW, in the realm of famous NFL broken legs, two defensive linemen deserve special recognition in this category. In the 1958 Colts-Giants title game, Colts DL Gino Marchetti broke his leg, but stayed on the field to watch the end of the game. 21 years later, the Rams' Jack Youngblood played the entire postseason on one, which is unbelievable or insane, depending on your perspective.

[Rupert Patrick]

BD Sullivan, on Apr 19 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

This debate is reminiscent of the grumbling from roughly 30 years ago (generally by the likes of Dick Young who complained) about the phoniness of Fran Tarkenton's stats when he got credit for a long TD pass. The gripe was that, most of the time, all Tark did was toss a dump off pass to Chuck Foreman (or others) and said receiver would then dash 50+ yards for a touchdown. Somebody had to get the ball to Foreman et al, so why shouldn't that person get credit for it?

BTW, in the realm of famous NFL broken legs, two defensive linemen deserve special recognition in this category. In the 1958 Colts-Giants title game, Colts DL Gino Marchetti broke his leg, but stayed on the field to watch the end of the game. 21 years later, the Rams' Jack Youngblood played the entire postseason on one, which is unbelievable or insane, depending on your perspective.

Another memorable leg break was suffered by Tim Krumrie early in Super Bowl 22. He broke both his tibia and fibula, but refused to go to the hospital until after the game.

[Bob Carroll]

Rupert Patrick, on Apr 19 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

Another memorable leg break was suffered by Tim Krumrie early in Super Bowl 22. He broke both his tibia and fibula, but refused to go to the hospital until after the game.

Famous mafia adage: "If you're going to make an omelet, you have to break a few legs."

[Clark Heins]

COMEBACK WINS SUMMARY:

Obviously, a great deal of work has to be done in this subject as the careers of many notable QBs have not even been explored---Bradshaw, Tarkenten, Moon, etc. It is a very slow and tedious job going back over line scores of the games these QBs played in and, in the end, you can never be 100% positive because there are times when the starting QB is replaced in the fourth quarter and you are unaware of it. Additional, the available media sources are, more often than not, incorrect. This is a subject wide open to research and I would hope that someone will take up the quest.

Anyway, as far as I can determine at the present time, there were only four QBs who achieved 30 or more comeback wins during their careers: 1. Dan Marino 37 (16 A, 21H). 2. John Elway 34 (12A, 22H). 3. Johnny Unitas 31 (16A, 15H). 4. Joe Montana 31 (23A, 7H, 1 N).

Other notables: Brett Favre 29 (6A, 23H). Drew Bledsoe 26 (11A, 15H). Peyton Manning 23 (12A, 11H). Jim Kelly 23 (13A, 10H). Vinny Testaverde---at least 21 (work in progress).

Recently completed: Troy Aikman 16 (6A, 10H).

[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 20 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

COMEBACK WINS SUMMARY:

Obviously, a great deal of work has to be done in this subject as the careers of many notable QBs have not even been explored---Bradshaw, Tarkenten, Moon, etc. It is a very slow and tedious job going back over line scores of the games these QBs played in and, in the end, you can never be 100% positive because there are times when the starting QB is replaced in the fourth quarter and you are unaware of it. Additional, the available media sources are, more often than not, incorrect. This is a subject wide open to research and I would hope that someone will take up the quest.

Anyway, as far as I can determine at the present time, there were only four QBs who achieved 30 or more comeback wins during their careers: 1. Dan Marino 37 (16 A, 21H). 2. John Elway 34 (12A, 22H). 3. Johnny Unitas 31 (16A, 15H). 4. Joe Montana 31 (23A, 7H, 1 N).

Other notables: Brett Favre 29 (6A, 23H). Drew Bledsoe 26 (11A, 15H). Peyton Manning 23 (12A, 11H). Jim Kelly 23 (13A, 10H). Vinny Testaverde---at least 21 (work in progress).

Recently completed: Troy Aikman 16 (6A, 10H).

Amazing! The quarterbacks on the list all had long careers with winning teams. Who would have thunk it? Well, this definitely proves that Dan Marino was superior to Ryan Leaf. Unfortunately, the list isn't complete, and, according to the poster, the accounts these are based on are often wrong, and some other quarterback was sometimes substituted but the poster can't tell when. Other than that, this is a terrific stat.

[Clark Heins]

Clark Heins, on Apr 20 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

COMEBACK WINS SUMMARY:

Obviously, a great deal of work has to be done in this subject as the careers of many notable QBs have not even been explored---Bradshaw, Tarkenten, Moon, etc. It is a very slow and tedious job going back over line scores of the games these QBs played in and, in the end, you can never be 100% positive because there are times when the starting QB is replaced in the fourth quarter and you are unaware of it. Additional, the available media sources are, more often than not, incorrect. This is a subject wide open to research and I would hope that someone will take up the quest.

Anyway, as far as I can determine at the present time, there were only four QBs who achieved 30 or more comeback wins during their careers: 1. Dan Marino 37 (16 A, 21H). 2. John Elway 34 (12A, 22H). 3. Johnny Unitas 31 (16A, 15H). 4. Joe Montana 31 (23A, 7H, 1 N).

Other notables: Brett Favre 29 (6A, 23H). Drew Bledsoe 26 (11A, 15H). Peyton Manning 23 (12A, 11H). Jim Kelly 23 (13A, 10H). Vinny Testaverde---at least 21 (work in progress).

Recently completed: Troy Aikman 16 (6A, 10H).

So as not to leave all you Vinny Testaverde fans hanging, here are Vinny's totals: Tampa Bay (6A, 3H); Cleveland (1H); Baltimore ((1A, 2H); Jets (9A, 4H); Dallas (1A,1H); Carolina (1A). Total 29 (18A, 11H). GO VINNY!

[Rupert Patrick]

Clark Heins, on Apr 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

So as not to leave all you Vinny Testaverde fans hanging, here are Vinny's totals: Tampa Bay (6A, 3H); Cleveland (1H); Baltimore ((1A, 2H); Jets (9A, 4H); Dallas (1A,1H); Carolina (1A). Total 29 (18A, 11H). GO VINNY!

I think a stat of this kind needs context; comeback wins divided by games quarterbacked, or by QB wins. It is not that impressive to me if the career leaders are guys like Elway and Favre because they probably Quarterbacked more games than any other QB in Pro Football history, and thus they would have more opportunities for comebacks.

[Bob Carroll]

Rupert Patrick, on Apr 20 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I think a stat of this kind needs context; comeback wins divided by games quarterbacked, or by QB wins. It is not that impressive to me if the career leaders are guys like Elway and Favre because they probably Quarterbacked more games than any other QB in Pro Football history, and thus they would have more opportunities for comebacks.

Aha! The voice of Reason! Although I'll never see why a quarterback should get credit for a result in which his team's defense was at least 50% responsible, at least putting the so-called "comeback wins" and losses in context of the quarterback's and his team's overall record will make a more interesting stat.

Clarification question: does a quarterback get stuck with a "comeback loss"if he fails to overcome a lead by his opponent at the beginning of the fourth quarter, or must he be leaduing entering thst quarter and then lose the game? Another question is should these games be called "Comeback Losses," "Comeback Flops," or maybe "Comedowns?"

[fgoodwin]

Bob Carroll, on Apr 18 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

What is wrong with this idea? Well first of all, setting the beginning of the fourth quarter is an arbitrary starting point. Why is that better than the second half, the final twenty minutes, or the last ten? It isn't. The only thing choosing that point in the game has going for it is that you can take the break to go to the bathroom and stop by the kitchen to pick up another beer so you'll be ready to cheer the possible comeback.

Its no more or less arbitrary than saying the "red zone" starts at the 20. And developing all sorts of stats based on that arbitrary yard line. Why not the 15, 25 or 30? I wonder if high schools counting tie-breaking "penetrations" using the 20 had anything to do with it?

[Bob Carroll]

fgoodwin, on Apr 20 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Its no more or less arbitrary than saying the "red zone" starts at the 20. And developing all sorts of stats based on that arbitrary yard line. Why not the 15, 25 or 30? I wonder if high schools counting tie-breaking "penetrations" using the 20 had anything to do with it?

Good point. Come to think of it, shouldn't the Red Zone begin at the 35? That's the point where just about any NFL placekicker can set up seven or eight yards back and expect to make a field goal.

[Clark Heins]

Rupert Patrick, on Apr 20 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I think a stat of this kind needs context; comeback wins divided by games quarterbacked, or by QB wins. It is not that impressive to me if the career leaders are guys like Elway and Favre because they probably Quarterbacked more games than any other QB in Pro Football history, and thus they would have more opportunities for comebacks.

I've tried to put some context into these figures by suggesting a formula very similiar to the one that you suggest---Comeback Wins/Expected Comeback Wins. The major difference is that I use QB starts rather than "games quarterbacked". The reason for this is rather obvious when we consider a QB like Joe Montana who had 164 regular season starts, but played in 192 regular season games. Montana served as a holder on PATs by two years while serving as an understudy to Steve DeBerg. It would be extremely unfair to Montana to use the latter figure.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, my "formula" results in a Bell-shaped curve. On one end stand those QBs who are much better in the clutch than an aveage NFL QB would be expected to be given the same number of starts (i.e., Tom Brady's number is approximately 1.3---which means that he is 30% better in the clutch than an aveaged NFL QB---all other things being equal---which, in some cases, of course, they are not). On the other end of the Bell-curve, we have two catagories of QB---those who are dominant (i.e., Steve Young whose number would be approximately .54) and those who are not (i.e., Jeff George). Separating Young from George is quite easy---all we have to do is compare Mr. McKinley's figures (Comeback Wins vs. Comeback Win Opportunities). In Young's case, from 1996-2005, he scored 7 comeback wins in 11 comeback win opportunities. During that same timespan, George scored 2 comeback wins in 14 opportunities. Common sense should tell you which QB's figure indicates dominance and which QB's figure tells another story.
By using the "formula" I suggest, it eliminates the discrepency between how many games each QB starts because his "comeback wins" total is judged against a standard---in this case 11.6 comeback wins per 100 games started for the aveage NFL QB Thus, the "formula" is fair to all. The major drawback to using this "formula" is that it largely depends on a QB having a significant number of starts. Therefore, it works best with QBs who have many starts rather than a few. The major advantage of using this "formula" is that it is that it uses simple math and, thus, any student of the game can use it. All one needs is the number of starts that a QB has and the number of comeback wins that he has. Of course, discovering comeback wins can be quite a chore, but not impossible.

[Bryan Lutes]

Clark Heins, on Apr 18 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

The title of this topic is "Comeback Wins". Apparently few people understand the meaning of what a comeback win is. A comeback win can only be achieved in two ways 1. The winning team nust be trailing the losing team entering the fourth quarter. 2. The winning team must fall behind at some point during the fourth quarter before rallying for the win.

Hmm...your definition of a comeback is much different than the Mr. McKinley's fascinating defintion of "any instance in which a team had possession of the ball at some point in the fourth quarter and was trailing by eight points or less". And your definition is somewhat redundant, because its impossible for criteria #1 to be fulfilled (winning team trailing the losing team entering the 4th quarter) and criteria #2 NOT be fulfilled (winning team must fall behind at some point during the 4th quarter).

While Mr. McKinley's definition allows for some gimmie comebacks in which the QB could actually have put his team behind in the 4th quarter and then be bailed out by his defense for the 'comeback win', I guess its a simple and workable definition. The problem I have is McKinley's complete lack of understanding that trailing by 8 points or LESS in the 4th period and then winning the ballgame does not allow for the conclusion that the QB spearheaded a late and dramatic rally.

If you are using the data to see which teams come from behind in the 4th quarter more frequently than others, than I think the above definitions may be applicable. If you are trying to see which QBs lead 'late and dramatic rallies' more frequently than others, then perhaps it would make more sense to analyze the QB's actual performance, and have some type of sliding scale where if the QB has 15 minutes to work with he must be trailing by more than 14 points, and if he has 5 minutes to work with he must be trailing by 7 or more points, etc. Then you would have to eliminate the "Joe Thiesmann Super Bowl XVII Effect" where a QB essentially does nothing but hand the ball off and then go to the sidelines to watch his defense dominate the opponent. Even baseball forces the starting pitcher to "pitch effectively" based on set statistical criteria before blindly awarding them a win.

[Bryan Lutes]

Clark Heins, on Apr 20 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

On the other end of the Bell-curve, we have two catagories of QB---those who are dominant (i.e., Steve Young whose number would be approximately .54) and those who are not (i.e., Jeff George). Separating Young from George is quite easy---all we have to do is compare Mr. McKinley's figures (Comeback Wins vs. Comeback Win Opportunities). In Young's case, from 1996-2005, he scored 7 comeback wins in 11 comeback win opportunities. During that same timespan, George scored 2 comeback wins in 14 opportunities. Common sense should tell you which QB's figure indicates dominance and which QB's figure tells another story.

You and Mr. McKinley have differing definitions of what constitutes a comeback, so I don't understand how you could compare your figures to his figures.

Also, common sense would tell is that a QB's defense would play a major role in the success of a comeback...if the QB's defense can't stop the opposing team's offense, then the QB will never be able to catch up on the scoreboard. He'll always be behind. What little relevance Steve Young's 7/11 ratio has versus Jeff George's 2/14 ratio has to be taken with a grain of salt, because I am sure the 1994 Niners had a better defense than the 1994 Falcons. Oh wait, your data only was taken from Young's 1996-2005 games even though Young retired shortly after the start of the 1999 season. With such screwy criteria, perhaps you could write an article for Football Outsiders like Mr. McKinley did.

[Clark Heins]

Bryan Lutes, on Apr 21 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

You and Mr. McKinley have differing definitions of what constitutes a comeback, so I don't understand how you could compare your figures to his figures.

Also, common sense would tell is that a QB's defense would play a major role in the success of a comeback...if the QB's defense can't stop the opposing team's offense, then the QB will never be able to catch up on the scoreboard. He'll always be behind. What little relevance Steve Young's 7/11 ratio has versus Jeff George's 2/14 ratio has to be taken with a grain of salt, because I am sure the 1994 Niners had a better defense than the 1994 Falcons. Oh wait, your data only was taken from Young's 1996-2005 games even though Young retired shortly after the start of the 1999 season. With such screwy criteria, perhaps you could write an article for Football Outsiders like Mr. McKinley did.

Bryan---As usual, you continue to be negative and critical and nit-picking about everything. No one ever said it was a perfect world. If you have some better idea, then tell us about it. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and squawk.

[Bob Carroll]

Clark Heins, on Apr 21 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Bryan---As usual, you continue to be negative and critical and nit-picking about everything. No one ever said it was a perfect world. If you have some better idea, then tell us about it. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and squawk.

Bryan -- as usual you continue to make good sense in discussing the ridiculous. Pointing out gross stupidity is hardly nit-picking. As for the challenge to tell us a better idea, that may sound good to a high schooler, but the first step is just to get rid of this particular piece of nonsense. There's no way that comeback wins can be used to prove anything. It's not just that the rules of what constitutes a comeback win vary with different adherents. Iit's not that much of the necessary information is unavailable to the guy hyping the idea. It's not just that so much of anybody's "comeback win" depends on arbitrary guidelines. It's not just that even with quarterbacks with lengthy careers the sample is too small to prove anything. It's not just that such a stat ends up rating a quarterback by the quality of his team's defense. It's not a half dozen other problems. In fact, if someone wants to set up his special rules for comeback wins and then count them up, I have no more objection to that than if he wanted to spend his waking hours counting the freckles on his own butt. Shucks, I think there's something about freedom to pursue useless hobbies in the U.S. Constitution. All I object to is any inference that such silliness be used to rank quarterbacks. That should be a crime.

[fgoodwin]

Bob Carroll, on Apr 21 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

All I object to is any inference that such silliness be used to rank quarterbacks. That should be a crime.

But by touting the number of comeback wins for QBs like Unitas, Montana, Elway, etc., aren't the proponents of such a stat inviting comparisons?

I agree the gross number of comeback wins is no more meaningful than total wins, as both measure longevity. But if we're going to discuss comeback wins, isn't it incumbent on the proponent to offer a definition? And if others find fault with it, isn't it incumbent on them to offer a better alternative?

So far, all I've seen is nitpicking complaints about how the term is defined and used, with no one offering a better alternative.