The Twins made an unexpected addition to their burgeoning bullpen over the weekend, adding former Mets and Red Sox reliever Addison Reed on a two-year pact worth $16.75 million. The deal profiles well for the Twins on a number of fronts. At 29, Reed is at the younger end of a relief pitching market deep in high quality back end bullpen arms. Reed represents the first multi-year deal the Twins have ever signed with an outside reliever in free agency. In spite of this, the Twins locked Reed up on a short contract, at a price which they undoubtedly would have had to surpass had they signed him earlier in free agency.
Reed joins a Twins bullpen shaping up to be vastly different, and potentially much improved over its 2017 iteration. In addition to returning standout Trevor Hildenberger, the Twins have added Fernando Rodney, presumably filling the vacant ninth inning role, and Zach Duke, returning from an injury-plagued 2017 season. In the former trio, the Twins seemed to have established a penchant for the traits they are pursuing in improving their bullpen; inducing ground balls and a lot of strikeouts, hardly a pioneering recipe for success. In Reed however, they have added a pitcher who generates more fly balls, so what about Reed has made him such a consistent a reliable late inning reliever?
There's no real intricacy in Reed's pitch mix. He throws a four seem fastball around 66% of the time, a slider 33% of the time, and a changeup about as often as Byron Buxton gets caught stealing a base. Reed has excellent control, posting a walk rate of 1.51 BB/9 in 2016 and 1.78 BB/9 in 2017. Reed's 2017 BB/9 was good for 11th among relievers who pitched at least 50 innings. This level of control was not always a staple of Reed's pitching. In his first 3 seasons in MLB his BB/9 oscillated between 2.90 and 3.05. While this may seem like a trivial difference, this is a difference of around 10-11 walks over a 75 inning sample, a big deal when you're constantly pitching in high leverage situations. So what is at the root of Reed's improved control since the beginning of the 2016 season?
In 2016, Reed produced a dramatic improvement in his overall numbers. In addition to refining his control, Reed stranded around 5% more baserunners, increased his K/9 from 8.2 to 10.55 and dropped his xFIP from 4.04 to 2.09. Reed has never had elite velocity. While some have commented on a dip in velocity throughout the past two seasons, his average four seam fastball velocity has remained fairly consistent, dropping from 93.66 mph in April of 2015 to 92.72 mph in October of 2017. So if Reed isn't blowing hitters away, how did his K/9 improve and stick above 9.0 in his last two seasons?
The number that jumps out in Reed's improvement from 2015 to 2016 is his F-Strike% (percentage of the time Reed is throwing a first pitch strike). In 2015 Reed's F-Strike% was around 56%. In 2016, it jumped to 70%. For the sake of comparison, old friend Pat Neshek had an F-Strike% of 71.1% in 2017 and had an incredible BB/9 of 0.87. This is a dramatic improvement from Reed which is even more impressive when visualized.
Here's a look at Reed's heat map from 2015. This charts the percentage a pitch falls within a sub-location of the strike zone. For all three of these searches I looked at heat maps representing the first pitch of a plate appearance, exclusively when Reed threw his four seem fastball. You'll immediately notice a stark contrast between 2015 and 2016. Reed improved in two notable areas, pounding the strike zone with a greater level of consistency, and using a greater portion of the strike zone when throwing first pitch strikes. We see a similar performance in 2017 (although not quite as impressive). Interestingly, Reed's obvious trend in locating his first pitch strikes higher in the zone in resulted in opposing batters OPS increasing from .587 in 2016, to .862 in 2017.
So where does Reed fit in the back end of a Twins bullpen which has been dramatically upgraded from a year ago? Initially, there was contention that adding Reed might create a closer controversy in Minnesota. The Twins had recently added Fernando Rodney to the pen on a one year deal. It seems as if the Twins will stick with Rodney as their primary ninth inning option. Since taking on his role with the Twins, Paul Molitor has been criticized in his bullpen management for traditionalism, a tendency to use each of his relievers in a pre-determined role. Intractably funneling Rodney into save situations may allow Molitor the luxury of using both Reed and Trevor Hildenberger as more flexible relievers, whose appearances are dictated by the leverage of a given situation, rather than the inning they are pitching in. In addition to providing Molitor with another quality arm, Reed may provide the impetus for Molitor to get more creative in facilitating the evolution of the Twins bullpen, maximizing the potential of a vastly upgraded group.
Kintzler did a a fantastic job the first chunk of the season and Belisle did a fantastic job the second half.If Rodney can come close to the combined performance of those two in late innings I would be thrilled but also a bit surprised.If there is an upgrade I consider it to be this move (Reed) along with the emergence of Hildenberger.Vastly upgraded remains to be seen. I thought the Twins did a great job of closing out winnable games last year while getting destroyed in games where the chances of winning were low anyway. I appreciate that we now have more depth and hope it translates to more wins. We exceeded the pythagorean win projection last year.I am just hoping the improved depth gets us the same wins without needing to beat it in 2018.


text:
Lasith Malinga bowling to Shahid Afridi in the 2009 T20 World Cup Final at Lord's, London.
Forms of cricket
Men's format
Women's format
First-class cricket
One Day International
Limited overs (domestic)
Limited overs cricket
List A cricket
Twenty20 International
Twenty20 (domestic)
100-ball cricket
Single wicket
UK variant
Blind cricket
Village cricket
Backyard cricket
French cricket
Plaquita
Bete-ombro
Kilikiti
ICC Men's Test Team Rankings
Women's Cricket World Cup
ICC Men's T20 World Cup
ICC Women's T20 World Cup
ICC Cricket World Cup League 2
ICC Cricket World Cup Challenge League
East Africa Premier League
World Cricket League Africa Region
History of cricket
History of cricket to 1725
History of cricket (1726–1771)
History of women's cricket
Twenty20 (T20) is a shortened game format of cricket. At the professional level, it was introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) in 2003 for the inter-county competition.[1] In a Twenty20 game, the two teams have a single innings each, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. Together with first-class and List A cricket, Twenty20 is one of the three current forms of cricket recognised by the International Cricket Council (ICC) as being at the highest international or domestic level.
A typical Twenty20 game is completed in about three hours, with each innings lasting around 90 minutes and an official 10-minute break between the innings. This is much shorter than previous forms of the game, and is closer to the timespan of other popular team sports. It was introduced to create a fast-paced game that would be attractive to spectators at the ground and viewers on television.
The game has succeeded in spreading around the cricket world. On most international tours there is at least one Twenty20 match and all Test-playing nations have a domestic cup competition. Australia are currently the defending world champions, after winning the 2021 World Cup.
Former England batsman Andrew Strauss batting for Middlesex against Surrey
When the Benson & Hedges Cup ended in 2002, the ECB needed another one-day competition to fill its place. Cricketing authorities were looking to boost the game's popularity with the younger generation in response to dwindling crowds and reduced sponsorship. It was intended to deliver fast-paced, exciting cricket accessible to thousands of fans who were put off by the longer versions of the game. Stuart Robertson, the marketing manager of the ECB, proposed a 20-over-per-innings game to county chairmen in 2001 and they voted 11–7 in favour of adopting the new format.[2]
The first official Twenty20 matches were played on 13 June 2003 between the English counties in the Twenty20 Cup.[3] The first season of Twenty20 in England was a relative success, with the Surrey Lions defeating the Warwickshire Bears by nine wickets in the final to claim the title.[4] The first Twenty20 match held at Lord's, on 15 July 2004 between Middlesex and Surrey, attracted a crowd of 27,509, the highest attendance for any county cricket game at the ground – other than a one-day final – since 1953.[5]
Spread worldwide
Thirteen teams from different parts of the country participated in Pakistan's inaugural competition in 2004, with the Faisalabad Wolves the first winners. On 12 January 2005 Australia's first Twenty20 game was played at the WACA Ground between the Western Warriors and the Victorian Bushrangers. It drew a sell-out crowd of 20,000, which was the first one in nearly 25 years.[6]
Starting on 11 July 2006, 19 West Indies regional teams competed in what was named the Stanford 20/20 tournament. The event was financially backed by billionaire Allen Stanford, who gave at least US$28,000,000 in funding money. It was intended that the tournament would be an annual event. Guyana won the inaugural event, defeating Trinidad and Tobago by five wickets, securing US$1,000,000 in prize money.[7][8]
On 5 January 2007 the Queensland Bulls played the New South Wales Blues at The Gabba, Brisbane. An unexpected 16,000 fans turned up on the day to buy tickets, causing Gabba staff to throw open gates and grant many fans free entry. Attendance reached 27,653.[9] For the February 2008 Twenty20 match between Australia and India, 85,824[10] people attended the match at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, involving the Twenty20 World Champions against the ODI World Champions.
The Stanford Super Series was held in October 2008 between three teams. The respective winners of the English and Caribbean Twenty20 competitions, Middlesex and Trinidad and Tobago, and a Stanford Superstars team formed from West Indies domestic players. Trinidad and Tobago won the competition, securing US$280,000 prize money.[11][12] On 1 November, the Stanford Superstars played England in what was expected to be the first of five fixtures in as many years with the winner claiming US$20,000,000 in each match. The Stanford Superstars won the first match,[13] but no further fixtures were held as Allen Stanford was charged with fraud in 2009.[14]
Crowd during a match of the 2015 IPL season in Hyderabad, India
Several T20 leagues started after the popularity of the 2007 ICC World Twenty20.[15] The Board of Control for Cricket in India started the Indian Premier League, which is now the largest cricket league, in 2008, which utilizes the North American sports franchise system with eight teams in major Indian cities. In September 2017, the broadcasting and digital rights for the next five years (2018–2022) of the IPL[16] were sold to Star India for US$2.55 billion,[17] making it one of the world's most lucrative sports league per match. The IPL has seen a spike in its brand valuation to US$5.3 billion after the 10th edition, according to global valuation and corporate finance advisor Duff & Phelps.[18]
The Big Bash League, Bangladesh Premier League, Pakistan Super League, Caribbean Premier League, and Afghan Premier League started thereafter, following similar formulae, and remained popular with the fans.[19][20] The Women's Big Bash League was started in 2015 by Cricket Australia, while the Kia Super League was started in England and Wales in 2016. The Mzansi Super League in South Africa was started in 2018.
Several T20 leagues[21] follow the general format of having a group stage followed by a Page playoff system among the top four teams where:
The first- and second-highest placed teams in the group stage face off, with the winner going to the final.
The third- and fourth-place teams face off, with the loser being eliminated.
The two teams who have not yet made it to the final after the above two matches have been played face off to fill the second berth in the final.
In the Big Bash League, there is an additional match to determine which of the fourth- or fifth-placed teams will qualify to be in the top four.[22]
Main articles: Twenty20 International and Women's Twenty20 International
The first Twenty20 International match was held on 5 August 2004 between the England and New Zealand women's teams, with New Zealand winning by nine runs.[23]
On 17 February 2005 Australia defeated New Zealand in the first men's international Twenty20 match, played at Eden Park in Auckland. The game was played in a light-hearted manner – both sides turned out in kit similar to that worn in the 1980s, the New Zealand team's a direct copy of that worn by the Beige Brigade. Some of the players also sported moustaches or beards and hairstyles popular in the 1980s, taking part in a competition amongst themselves for "best retro look", at the request of the Beige Brigade. Australia won the game comprehensively, and as the result became obvious towards the end of the NZ innings, the players and umpires took things less seriously: Glenn McGrath jokingly replayed the Trevor Chappell underarm incident from a 1981 ODI between the two sides, and Billy Bowden showed him a mock red card (red cards are not normally used in cricket) in response.
The first Twenty20 international in England was played between England and Australia at the Rose Bowl in Hampshire on 13 June 2005, which England won by a margin of 100 runs, a record victory which lasted until 2007.[24]
On 9 January 2006 Australia and South Africa met in the first international Twenty20 game in Australia. In a first, each player's nickname appeared on the back of his uniform, rather than his surname. The international match drew a crowd of 38,894 people at The Gabba.
On 16 February 2006 New Zealand defeated West Indies in a tie-breaking bowl-out 3–0; 126 runs were scored apiece in the game proper. The game was the last international match played by Chris Cairns.
The ICC has declared that it sees T20 as the optimal format for globalizing the game,[25] and in 2018, announced that it will give international status to all T20 cricket matches played between its member nations.[26] This resulted in a significant leap in the number of T20I matches played across the world.[27][28]
Main articles: ICC Men's T20 World Cup and ICC Women's T20 World Cup
Every two years an ICC World Twenty20 tournament is to take place, except in the event of an ICC Cricket World Cup being scheduled in the same year, in which case it will be held the year before. The first tournament was in 2007 in South Africa where India defeated Pakistan in the final. Two Associate teams had played in the first tournament, selected through the 2007 ICC World Cricket League Division One, a 50-over competition. In December 2007 it was decided to hold a qualifying tournament with a 20-over format to better prepare the teams. With six participants, two would qualify for the 2009 World Twenty20 and would each receive $250,000 in prize money.[29] The second tournament was won by Pakistan, who beat Sri Lanka by eight wickets in England on 21 June 2009. The 2010 ICC World Twenty20 tournament was held in the West Indies in May 2010, where England defeated Australia by seven wickets. The 2012 ICC World Twenty20 was won by the West Indies, by defeating Sri Lanka at the finals. It was the first time in cricket history when a T20 World Cup tournament took place in an Asian country. The 2014 ICC World Twenty20 was won by Sri Lanka, by defeating India at the finals, where the tournament was held in Bangladesh. The 2016 ICC World Twenty20 was won by West Indies. In July 2020, the ICC announced that both the 2020 and 2021 editions had been postponed by one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In June 2021, the ICC expanded the Twenty20 World Cup from 16 to 20 teams starting from the 2024 edition onwards.[30]
Impact on the game
Twenty20 matches can have some exciting displays, such as when the batsmen run out to the pitch
Twenty20 cricket is claimed to have resulted in a more athletic and explosive form of cricket. Indian fitness coach Ramji Srinivasan declared in an interview with the Indian fitness website Takath.com that Twenty20 had "raised the bar" in terms of fitness levels for all players, demanding higher levels of strength, speed, agility and reaction time from all players regardless of role in the team.[31] Matthew Hayden credited retirement from international cricket with aiding his performance in general and fitness in particular in the Indian Premier League.[32]
In June 2009, speaking at the annual Cowdrey Lecture at Lord's, former Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist pushed for Twenty20 to be made an Olympic sport. "It would," he said, "be difficult to see a better, quicker or cheaper way of spreading the game throughout the world."[33] In a similar vein, several commentators have noted that the T20 format has been embraced by many Associate members of the ICC partly because it is more financially viable to play.[34][25]
Former Australian captain Ricky Ponting, on the other hand, has criticized Twenty20 as being detrimental to Test cricket and for hampering batsmen's scoring skills and concentration.[35] Former Australian captain Greg Chappell made similar complaints, fearing that young players would play too much T20 and not develop their batting skills fully, while former England player Alex Tudor feared the same for bowling skills.[36][37]
Former West Indies captains Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding and Garfield Sobers criticised Twenty20 for its role in discouraging players from representing their test cricket national side, with many West Indies players like Chris Gayle, Sunil Narine and Dwayne Bravo preferring instead to play in a Twenty20 franchise elsewhere in the world and make far more money.[38][39][40][41][42]
Under-17s and Under-19s are playing T20 games in national championships, and at the detriment of two-day games. Good state players these days are averaging 35; if you were averaging 35 when I was playing your dad would go and buy you a basketball or a footy and tell you to play that.
Ricky Ponting, [43]
Match format and rules
Twenty20 match format is a form of limited overs cricket in that it involves two teams, each with a single innings. The key feature is that each team bats for a maximum of 20 overs (120 legal balls). The batting team members do not arrive from and depart to traditional dressing rooms, but come and go from a bench (typically a row of chairs) visible in the playing arena, analogous to association football's technical area or a baseball dugout.[44]
Middlesex playing against Surrey at Lord's, in front of a 28,000-strong crowd
The Laws of cricket apply to Twenty20, with major exceptions:[45]
Each bowler may bowl a maximum of only one-fifth of the total overs per innings. For a full, uninterrupted match, this is four overs.
If a bowler delivers a no-ball by overstepping the crease, it costs one or two runs (depending on the competition) and their next delivery is designated a "free-hit". In this circumstance the batter can only be dismissed through a run out, hitting the ball twice or obstructing the field.
The following fielding restrictions apply:
No more than five fielders can be on the leg side at any time.
During the first six overs, a maximum of two fielders can be outside the 30-yard circle (this is known as the powerplay).
After the first six overs, a maximum of five fielders can be outside the fielding circle.
If the fielding team does not start to bowl their 20th over within 75 minutes, the batting side is credited an extra six runs for every whole over bowled after the 75-minute mark; the umpire may add more time to this if they believe the batting team is wasting time.
Tie deciders
Main article: Super Over
Currently, if the match ends with the scores tied and there must be a winner, the tie is broken with a one-over-per-side Eliminator[46] or Super Over:[47][48] Each team nominates three batsmen and one bowler to play a one-over-per-side "mini-match". The team which bats second in the match bats first in the Super Over.[49][50] In turn, each side bats one over bowled by the one nominated opposition bowler, with their innings over if they lose two wickets before the over is completed. The side with the higher score from their Super Over wins. If the Super Over also ends up in a tie, it is repeated until the tie is broken.
In the Australian domestic competition the Big Bash League, the Super Over is played slightly differently, with no two-wicket limit, and if the Super Over is also tied then a "countback" is used, with scores after the fifth ball for each team being used to determine the result. If it is still tied, then the countback goes to four balls, and so on.[51] The latest Super Over to decide a match was between the Sydney Sixers and the Brisbane Heat on 25 January 2017, in the Big Bash League at the Brisbane Cricket Ground, with the Sixers winning 0/22 to 0/15 in the Super Over after tying on 164.[52]
Tied Twenty20 matches were previously decided by a bowl-out.[53]
Women's and men's Twenty20 Internationals have been played since 2004 and 2005 respectively. To date, 76 nations have played the format, including all Test-playing nations.
Date of men's T20I debut
Date of women's T20I debut
Australia 17 February 2005 2 September 2005
New Zealand 17 February 2005 5 August 2004
England 13 June 2005 5 August 2004
South Africa 21 October 2005 10 August 2007
West Indies 16 February 2006 27 June 2008
Sri Lanka 15 June 2006 12 June 2009
Pakistan 28 August 2006 25 May 2009
Bangladesh 28 November 2006 27 August 2012
Zimbabwe 28 November 2006 5 January 2019
India 1 December 2006 5 August 2006
Kenya 1 September 2007 6 April 2019
Scotland 12 September 2007 7 July 2018
Netherlands 2 August 2008 27 June 2008
Ireland 2 August 2008 27 June 2008
Canada 2 August 2008 17 May 2019
Bermuda 3 August 2008
Afghanistan 2 February 2010
Nepal 16 March 2014 12 January 2019
Hong Kong 16 March 2014 12 January 2019
United Arab Emirates 17 March 2014 7 July 2018
Papua New Guinea 15 July 2015 7 July 2018
Oman 25 July 2015
Sierra Leone 20 August 2018
Lesotho 20 August 2018
South Korea 3 November 2018
China 3 November 2018
Indonesia 12 January 2019
Myanmar 12 January 2019
Bhutan 13 January 2019
Bahrain 20 January 2019
Saudi Arabia 20 January 2019
Kuwait 20 January 2019 18 February 2019
Maldives 20 January 2019
Qatar 21 January 2019
Rwanda 26 January 2019
United States 15 March 2019 17 May 2019
Philippines 22 March 2019
Vanuatu 22 March 2019 6 May 2019
Spain 29 March 2019
Malta 29 March 2019
Mexico 25 April 2019 23 August 2018
Belize 25 April 2019
Costa Rica 25 April 2019 26 April 2019
Panama 25 April 2019
Japan 6 May 2019
Fiji 6 May 2019
Tanzania 6 May 2019
Belgium 11 May 2019
Germany 11 May 2019 26 June 2019
Uganda 20 May 2019 7 July 2018
Nigeria 20 May 2019 26 January 2019
Ghana 20 May 2019
Namibia 20 May 2019 20 August 2018
Botswana 20 May 2019 20 August 2018
Italy 25 May 2019
Guernsey 31 May 2019 31 May 2019
Jersey 31 May 2019 31 May 2019
Norway 15 June 2019 31 July 2019
Denmark 16 June 2019
Mali 18 June 2019
Malaysia 24 June 2019 3 June 2018
Thailand 24 June 2019 3 June 2018
Samoa 8 July 2019 6 May 2019
Finland 13 July 2019
Singapore 22 July 2019 9 August 2018
France 31 July 2019
Cayman Islands 18 August 2019
Austria 29 August 2019 31 July 2019
Romania 29 August 2019
Luxembourg 29 August 2019
Turkey 29 August 2019
Czech Republic 30 August 2019
Argentina 3 October 2019 3 October 2019
Brazil 3 October 2019 23 August 2018
Chile 3 October 2019 23 August 2018
Peru 3 October 2019 3 October 2019
Bulgaria 14 October 2019
Serbia 14 October 2019
Greece 15 October 2019
Portugal 25 October 2019
Gibraltar 26 October 2019
Malawi 6 November 2019 20 August 2018
Mozambique 6 November 2019 20 August 2018
T20 International rankings
Main article: ICC World Twenty20 rankings
In November 2011, the ICC released the first Twenty20 International rankings for the men's game, based on the same system as the Test and ODI rankings. The rankings cover a two- to three-year period, with matches since the most recent 1 August weighted fully, matches in the preceding 12 months weighted two-thirds, and matches in the 12 months preceding that weighted one-third. To qualify for the rankings, teams must have played at least eight Twenty20 Internationals in the ranking period.[54][55]
ICC Men's T20I Team Rankings
England 34 9,354 275
India 36 9,627 267
Pakistan 43 11,381 265
New Zealand 38 9,707 255
South Africa 35 8,858 253
Australia 40 9,927 248
Afghanistan 17 3,951 232
Sri Lanka 30 6,950 232
West Indies 34 7,874 232
Bangladesh 37 8,529 231
Zimbabwe 30 5,751 192
Nepal 19 3,556 187
Ireland 32 5,938 186
Scotland 24 4,447 185
United Arab Emirates 15 2,750 183
Namibia 25 4,435 177
Oman 13 2,260 174
Netherlands 23 3,992 171
Papua New Guinea 19 3,166 167
Singapore 12 1,678 140
Qatar 15 1,917 128
Canada 16 1,976 124
Jersey 19 2,333 123
Hong Kong 13 1,572 121
Uganda 28 2,948 105
Italy 12 1,245 104
Kuwait 12 1,241 103
Saudi Arabia 8 801 100
Kenya 20 1,988 99
United States 14 1,364 97
Bermuda 12 1,056 88
Malaysia 20 1,723 86
Germany 23 1,972 86
Bahrain 8 675 84
Tanzania 13 1,062 82
Denmark 15 1,160 77
Botswana 14 1,070 76
Guernsey 9 645 72
Spain 11 768 70
Romania 17 1,163 68
Norway 10 667 67
Nigeria 23 1,487 65
Austria 13 756 58
Belgium 17 955 56
Sweden 10 536 54
Philippines 5 241 48
France 7 333 48
Mexico 7 313 45
Cayman Islands 3 132 44
Vanuatu 10 435 44
Portugal 9 387 43
Ghana 13 541 42
Isle of Man 8 329 41
Luxembourg 16 613 38
Argentina 11 416 38
Bahamas 6 223 37
Malawi 15 556 37
Peru 5 179 36
Fiji 3 105 35
Finland 9 313 35
Sierra Leone 10 331 33
Hungary 5 165 33
Samoa 5 159 32
Japan 4 126 32
Costa Rica 4 126 32
Belize 11 341 31
Malta 25 766 31
Panama 11 287 26
Thailand 7 175 25
Cyprus 9 210 23
Czech Republic 19 396 21
South Korea 4 78 20
Greece 5 94 19
Mozambique 13 214 16
Rwanda 14 206 15
Bhutan 4 47 12
Bulgaria 20 221 11
Saint Helena 6 55 9
Seychelles 6 54 9
Brazil 5 39 8
Maldives 11 55 5
Gibraltar 14 55 4
Chile 5 19 4
Myanmar 3 1 0
Indonesia 3 0 0
Eswatini 9 0 0
Serbia 5 0 0
Lesotho 9 0 0
China 4 0 0
Estonia 6 0 0
Turkey 4 0 0
References: ESPNcricinfo, ICC T20I rankings, Updated on 06 December 2021
"Matches" is the number of matches played in the 12-24 months since the May before last, plus half the number in the 24 months before that.
Until 2018, the ICC did not maintain a separate Twenty20 ranking for the women's game, instead aggregating performance over all three forms of the game into one overall women's teams ranking.[56] However, in October, the ICC announced that the women's ranking would be split between ODIs and T20Is, and released both tables shortly thereafter.[57]
Domestic professional T20 leagues
An Indian Premier League match commencing at the Chepauk Stadium between the Chennai Super Kings and the Kolkata Knight Riders
The Perth Scorchers taking on the Hobart Hurricanes at the WACA during BBL 01 (2011)
Main article: List of domestic Twenty20 cricket competitions
This is a list of the current Twenty20 domestic competitions in several of the leading cricket countries.
Domestic competitions
Number of teams
Afghanistan Afghanistan Premier League, Shpageeza Cricket League 5, 6
Australia Big Bash League 8
Bangladesh Bangladesh Premier League 8
Canada Global T20 Canada 6
England T20 Blast 18
Hong Kong Hong Kong T20 Blitz 5
India Indian Premier League, Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy 8, 38
Ireland Inter-Provincial Trophy 4
Netherlands Dutch Twenty20 Cup 16
Nepal Everest Premier League, Dhangadhi Premier League, Pokhara Premier League 6, 6, 6
New Zealand Super Smash 6
Pakistan Pakistan Super League, National T20 Cup, Kashmir Premier League 6, 6, 6
Scotland Murgitroyd Twenty20, Regional Pro Series 3
South Africa Mzansi Super League, CSA T20 Challenge, CSA Provincial T20 Cup 6, 6, 15
Sri Lanka Lanka Premier League 5
West Indies Caribbean Premier League 6
United States Major League Cricket 6
Zimbabwe Stanbic Bank 20 Series 4
List of Twenty20 cricket records
List of Twenty20 International records
T10 cricket, the 10-over format of cricket
Major League Cricket
^ "The first official T20 in 2003".
^ Cleaver, Dylan (3 November 2010). Brendon McCullum: Inside Twenty20. Hachette New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-86971-238-9.
^ Matches played 13 June 2003 ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 9 June 2008
^ Twenty20 Cup, 2003, Final – Surrey v Warwickshire ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 9 June 2008
^ Weaver, Paul (25 May 2009). "Usman Afzaal gives Surrey winning start but absent fans fuel concerns". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "Sellout at WACA for Twenty20 match". ESPNcricinfo. 12 January 2005. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "Guyana crowned Stanford 20/20 champions". ESPNcricinfo. 14 August 2006.
^ "Dates for Stanford Twenty20 announced". The Jamaica Observer. 9 February 2006. Archived from the original on 5 December 2008.
^ "Gabba fans let in for free". Cricket20.com.
^ "India crash to nine-wicket defeat". ESPNcricinfo. 1 February 2008.
^ "Udal leads Middlesex for Stanford". ESPNcricinfo. 3 October 2008. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ McGlashan, Andrew (27 October 2008). "Ramdin leads T&T to big-money glory". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ McGlashan, Andrew (1 November 2008). "Gayle leads Superstars to millions". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "US tycoon charged over $8bn fraud". BBC News. 17 February 2009. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "Are T20 leagues making money?".
^ "IPL Live Score". iplt20lives.com. Retrieved 8 April 2021.
^ "IPL television and broadcast rights sold for massive £1.97bn to Star India". The Guardian. 4 September 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
^ "IPL 2017 Valuation". TOI. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
^ "IPL world's 6th most attended league, Big Bash 9th: Report". The Times of India.
^ "The lowdown on the major T20 leagues".
^ "IPL format: No time to relax". Hindustan Times. 9 May 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
^ "EXPLAINED | Format of Big Bash League 2019-20 finals". The Statesman. 22 January 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
^ Miller, Andrew (6 August 2004). "Revolution at the seaside". Cricinfo. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
^ "Records / Twenty20 Internationals / Team records / Largest margin of victory (by runs)". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ a b "Cricket gets smaller before it can grow?". playthegame.org. Retrieved 27 October 2021.
^ "T20s between all ICC members to have international status". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 27 October 2021.
^ "Cricket looks set to become a global game". The Economist. 20 October 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
^ "T20 International Cricket drives significant growth in 2019". icc-cricket.com. Retrieved 27 October 2021.
^ "ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier to be held in Ireland". ESPNcricinfo. 13 December 2007. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "ICC expands men's world events: ODI WC to 14 teams, T20 WC to 20 teams". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 27 October 2021.
^ "An interview with Ramji Srinivasan". Takath.com. 19 June 2009.
^ "Hayden heroics shining light of IPL". The Canberra Times. 13 May 2009. Archived from the original on 18 September 2009.
^ Quoted in Booth, Lawrence. "Myths; And stereotypes." The Spin, 30 June 2009.
^ Germany, Brazil, Thailand: T20 the vehicle to drive cricket to ever newer horizons https://indianexpress.com/ 23 October 2021 ""We are good at T20 because that's the format in which we get maximum exposure, apart from the fact that it is financially viable", says former Afghanistan Cricket Association chief executive Shafiq Stanikzai."
^ "I told Dravid not to retire – Ponting".
^ "How is T20 affecting cricket?".
^ "Alex Tudor fears T20 is killing cricket's traditional skills".
^ "T20 cricket has destroyed West Indies cricket: Sir Garfield Sobers – Firstpost". firstpost.com.
^ "T20 has messed our cricket up – Lloyd".
^ Gray, James (17 August 2017). "Why isn't Chris Gayle playing for West Indies against England? Test absence explained".
^ "Gayle, Bravo, Pollard – Why Windies' Stars Will Skip India Series".
^ White, Jim (1 June 2010). "Twenty20 will kill Test cricket within 20 years, says West Indian great Michael Holding". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022.
^ "I told Dravid not to retire – Ponting". ESPN Cricinfo. 25 August 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2018.
^ "Bringing back fences could help even up the contest between bat and ball, and ensure that all sixes are genuine".
^ "Twenty20 Rules". CricketWorld4U. Retrieved 5 January 2015.
^ "One-over eliminator could replace bowl-out". cricinfo.com cricinfo.com. 27 June 2008. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
^ "Windies edge NZ in Twenty20 thriller". abc.net.au Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 December 2008. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
^ "Benn stars in thrilling tie". cricinfo.com cricinfo.com. 26 December 2008. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
^ "Vettori opposes Super Over". cricinfo.com cricinfo.com. 26 December 2008. Retrieved 5 February 2009.
^ The Explainer (13 January 2009). "One1". cricinfo.com cricinfo.com. Retrieved 5 February 2009.
^ "KFC T20 Big Bash League: Rules". KFC T20 Big Bash League. Archived from the original on 9 January 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2015.
^ "Recap: Big Bash second Semi Final: Sydney Sixers v Brisbane Heat". news.com.au. 25 January 2017. Retrieved 25 January 2017.
^ "Super Over to replace bowl out". ESPN CricInfo. 27 October 2008. Retrieved 5 January 2015.
^ ICC Team Rankings Archived 16 January 2012 at WebCite
^ Kendix, David. ICC rankings for Tests, ODIs, Twenty20 & Women. ESPN Cricinfo. ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
^ "ICC Women's Team Rankings launched". International Cricket Council. Archived from the original on 25 December 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
^ "ICC Launches Global Women's T20I Team Rankings". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
Cricinfo – Twenty20 records
IPL News 2021
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Twenty20 cricket.
West Indies 2010
Bangladesh 2014
UAE/Oman 2021
USA/West Indies 2024
India/Sri Lanka 2026
Australia/New Zealand 2028
England/Ireland/Scotland 2030
Women's Test cricket
Women's One Day International
Women's Twenty20 International
Women's Twenty20
Indoor cricket (UK variant)
Double Wicket
Backyard or street cricket
Deaf cricket
One-armed versus one-legged
Trobriand cricket
Short form cricket
Tape ball cricket
Tennis ball cricket
Beach cricket
Ice cricket
Windball cricket
Last man stands cricket
Twenty20 cricket leagues
Afghanistan Premier League (Afghanistan)
Shpageeza Cricket League (Afghanistan)
Bangladesh Premier League (Bangladesh)
Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy (India)
Indian Premier League (India)
Everest Premier League (Nepal)
National Twenty20 Cup (Pakistan)
Pakistan Super League (Pakistan)
Lanka Premier League (Sri Lanka)
Big Bash League (Australia)
Women's Big Bash League (Australia)
Super Smash (men's) (New Zealand)
Super Smash (women's) (New Zealand)
T20 Blast (England and Wales)
Charlotte Edwards Cup (England and Wales)
Interprovincial Twenty20 Cup (Ireland)
Dutch Twenty20 Cup (Netherlands)
Murgitroyd Twenty20 (Scotland)
Regional Pro Series (Scotland)
Euro T20 Slam (Ireland, Netherlands and Scotland)
CSA Provincial Twenty20 (South Africa)
Stanbic Bank 20 Series (Zimbabwe)
Mzansi Super League (South Africa)
Caribbean Premier League (West Indies)
Twenty20 Blaze (West Indies)
Global T20 Canada (Canada)
Major League Cricket (United States)
Minor League Cricket (United States)
Champions League Twenty20 (International)
Stanford Super Series (West Indies/England)
Cricket All-Stars (International)
International 20:20 Club Championship (International)
Etisalat Sixes T20 Tournament (Afghanistan)
National Cricket League (Bangladesh)
Victory Day T20 Cup (Bangladesh)
Indian Cricket League (India)
Faysal Bank Super Eight T20 Cup (Pakistan)
Hong Kong T20 Blitz (Hong Kong)
Ramadan T20 Cup (Pakistan)
Sri Lanka Premier League (Sri Lanka)
Twenty20 Tournament (Sri Lanka)
Super T20 Provincial Tournament (Sri Lanka)
Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy (United Arab Emirates)
Masters Champions League (United Arab Emirates)
Australian Women's Twenty20 Cup (Australia)
KFC Twenty20 Big Bash (Australia)
Women's Cricket Super League (England)
North Sea Pro20 (Scotland/Netherlands)
Africa T20 Cup (South Africa)
Ram Slam T20 Challenge (South Africa)
East Africa Premier League (Kenya & Uganda)
National Elite League Twenty20 (Kenya)
CIBC National Cricket League (Canada)
American Premier League (United States)
American Twenty20 Championship (United States)
Pro Cricket (United States)
Caribbean Twenty20 (West Indies)
Stanford 20/20 (West Indies)
Basket sports
Rezball
Ringball
Gol Koochik
AFLX
Lightning football
Nine-a-side
Gridiron codes
Indoor American football
Hybrid codes
Eton wall game
Swedish football
Medieval/historical
football codes
Ba game
La soule
Pasuckuakohowog
Rugby codes
Other related codes
Kī-o-rahi
Jegichagi
Bat-and-ball
Corkball
Stickball
Vitilla
Welsh/British baseball
Stick and ball
Super11s
Shinty–Hurling
Indigenous North American stickball
Iomain
Ritinis
Hockey sports
ice sledge
Rinkball
Unicycle hockey
Auto polo
Cycle polo
Elephant polo
Arena polo
Chovgan
snow polo
Net sports
Football tennis
pioneerball
Underwater football
Underwater rugby
Balle à la main
Ballon au poing
Basque pelota
Bocce volo
Buzkashi
Combat (juggling)
Jereed
Longue paume
Makura-Nage
Mesoamerican ballgame
Pushball
Roll ball
Slahal
Snow snake
Synchronized skating
Llargues
Woodball
Twenty20 cricket

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Neurosurgery. 2000 Dec;47(6):1320-9; discussion 1329-31.
Effects of timing of coil embolization after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage on procedural morbidity and outcomes.
Baltsavias GS1, Byrne JV, Halsey J, Coley SC, Sohn MJ, Molyneux AJ.
Department of Radiology, Radcliffe Infirmary National Health Service Trust, Oxford, England.
To elucidate the effect of treatment timing on procedural clinical outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) for patients treated by endosaccular coil embolization.
A group of 327 patients who were consecutively treated, during a 46-month period, for ruptured intracranial aneurysms by coil embolization within 30 days after SAH were evaluated. Outcomes were assessed by comparing immediate pretreatment World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS) grades, 72-hour posttreatment WFNS grades, and modified Glasgow Outcome Scale scores at 6 months for patients treated within 48 hours (Group 1), 3 to 10 days (Group 2), or 11 to 30 days (Group 3) after SAH.
The three interval-to-treatment groups included 33, 38, and 29% of the patients, respectively. Before treatment, 70% of the patients in Group 1, 78% of those in Group 2, and 83% of those in Group 3 were in good clinical grades (i.e., WFNS Grade 1 or 2). After coil embolization, the WFNS grades were either unchanged or improved for 93.5% of the patients in Group 1, 89.5% of those in Group 2, and 91.5% of those in Group 3. After 6 months, 81.3% of the patients in Group 1 experienced good outcomes (modified Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 1 or 2), as did 84% of those in Group 2 and 80% of those in Group 3. No statistical difference was demonstrated between the three groups when they were compared for these two variables.
The interval between endovascular treatment and SAH did not affect periprocedural morbidity rates or 6-month outcomes. Coil embolization should therefore be performed as early as possible after aneurysmal SAH, to prevent aneurysmal rerupture.
Aneurysm, Ruptured/complications*
Aneurysm, Ruptured/physiopathology
Embolization, Therapeutic*/instrumentation
Intracranial Aneurysm/complications*
Intracranial Aneurysm/physiopathology
Neurosurgical Procedures/adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Severity of Illness Index
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/etiology*
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/physiopathology
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/therapy*
Brain Aneurysm - MedlinePlus Health Information


163/600 pecha berries. please feed! — On task 12/16 in That Burning Desire!!
Howdy! I'm Valkyrie. If you happen to be looking for the SN achievement, send a PM my way and I'll add you~ It would be appreciated if you could message me when you did get the achievement though, that way I could make room on my pal pad for other people that need it.
C, E, G, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, X, Z, ?
Valiant Valkyrie has no recent activity.
Generated in 476 ms, using 9 MySQL queries and 34 included files. Loaded in --ms and displayed in --ms.


text:
\section{Introduction}
In the Standard Model, SM, transition rates of semileptonic processes such as
$d^i \to  u^j \ell \nu$, with $d^i$ ($u^j$) being a generic
down (up) quark, can be computed with high accuracy in terms
of the Fermi coupling $G_F$ and the elements $V_{ji}$ of the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM) matrix.
Measurements of the transition rates provide therefore
precise determinations of the fundamental SM couplings.

A detailed analysis of semileptonic decays offers also
the possibility to set stringent constraints on  new physics scenarios.
While within the SM all $d^i \to  u^j \ell \nu$ transitions
are ruled by the same CKM coupling $V_{ji}$ (satisfying
the unitarity condition $\sum_k |V_{ik}|^2 =1$) and
$G_F$ is the same coupling appearing in the muon decay,
this is not necessarily true beyond the SM.
Setting bounds on the violations of CKM unitarity,
violations of lepton universality, and deviations from
the $V-A$ structure, allows us to put significant
constraints on various new-physics scenarios
(or eventually find evidences of new physics).

In the case of leptonic and semileptonic $K$ decays these tests
are particularly significant given the large amount of
data recently collected by several experiments:
BNL-E865, KLOE, KTeV, ISTRA+, and NA48.
The analysis of these data provides precise determination of fundamental SM couplings,
sets stringent SM test almost free from hadronic uncertainties, and
finally can discriminate between new physics scenarios.
The high statistical precision of measurements  and the detailed information
on kinematical distributions have pushed a substantial progress on the theory side,
in particular the theoretical error on hadronic form factors has been reduced
at the 1\% level.

The paper is organized as follows. First in Sec.~\ref{BRfits}
we present fits to world data on the leading branching ratios and lifetimes,
for $K_L$, $K_S$, and $K^\pm$ mesons. Sec.~\ref{slopes} summarizes
the status of the knowledge of form factor slopes from $K_{\ell 3}$ decays.
The physics results obtained are described in Sec.~\ref{resulta}, in particular
the measurement of $|V_{us}f_+(0)|$.
Finally, to the special role
of $\Gamma(K_{e2}^\pm)/\Gamma(K_{\mu 2}^\pm)$ ratio is devoted the Sec.~\ref{ke2}.

\section{Experimental data: BRs and lifetime}
\label{BRfits}
Numerous measurements of the principal kaon BRs, or of various ratios
of these BRs, have been published recently. For the purposes of evaluating
$|V_{us}f_+(0)|$, these data can be used in a PDG-like fit to the BRs and lifetime,
so all such measurements are interesting.
A detailed description to
the fit procedure and the references of all experimental input used
can be found in Ref.~\cite{Flavia2008}.

For $K_L$ the results are given in table~\ref{tab:KLBR}, while
table~\ref{tab:KpmBR} gives the results for $K^\pm$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|r}
Parameter & Value & $S$ \\
\hline
\BR{K_{e3}} & 0.4056(7) & 1.1 \\
\BR{K_{\mu3}} & 0.2705(7) & 1.1 \\
\BR{3\pi^0} & 0.1951(9) & 1.2 \\
\BR{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0} & 0.1254(6) & 1.1 \\
\BR{\pi^+\pi^-} & \SN{1.997(7)}{-3} & 1.1 \\
\BR{2\pi^0} & \SN{8.64(4)}{-4} & 1.3 \\
\BR{\gamma\gamma} & \SN{5.47(4)}{-4} & 1.1 \\
$\tau_L$ & 51.17(20)~ns & 1.1 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip 0.3cm
\caption{\label{tab:KLBR}
Results of fit to $K_L$ BRs and lifetime.}
\end{table}
For the $K_S$, the fit is dominated by the KLOE measurements of $BR(K_S\to\pi e\nu)$ and
of $BR(\pi^+\pi^-)/BR(\pi^0\pi^0)$. These, together with
the constraint that the $K_S$ BRs must add to unity, and the assumption of
universal lepton couplings, completely determine the $K_S$ leading BRs
In particular, $\BR{K_S\to\pi e\nu} = \SN{7.046(91)}{-4}$.
For $\tau_{K_S}$ we use \SN{0.8958}{-10}~s, where this is the non-$CPT$
constrained fit value from the PDG.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|r}
Parameter & Value & $S$ \\
\hline
\BR{K_{\mu2}}      & 63.57(11)\%   & 1.1 \\
\BR{\pi\pi^0}      & 20.64(8)\%   & 1.1 \\
\BR{\pi\pi\pi}     &  5.595(31)\%  & 1.0 \\
\BR{K_{e3}}        &  5.078(26)\%    & 1.2 \\
\BR{K_{\mu3}}      &  3.365(27)\%  & 1.7 \\
\BR{\pi\pi^0\pi^0} &  1.750(26)\%  & 1.1 \\
$\tau_\pm$         & 12.384(19)~ns & 1.7 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip 0.3cm
\caption{\label{tab:KpmBR}
Results of fit to $K^\pm$ BRs and lifetime.}
\end{table}

\section{Experimental data: $K_{\ell 3 }$ form factors}
\label{slopes}
The hadronic  $K \to \pi$ matrix element of the vector current
is described by two form factors (FFs),  $f_+(t)$ and  $f_0(t)$.
By construction,  $f_0(0)=f_+(0)$.
In order to compute the phase space integrals
we need experimental or theoretical inputs about the  $t$-dependence of FF.
In principle,  Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT)
and Lattice QCD are useful tools to set theoretical constraints.
However, in practice the  $t$-dependence of the FFs at present
is better determined by measurements and by combining measurements
and dispersion relations.
Many approaches have been used, and all have been described in detail in~\cite{Flavia2008}.
Here we list only the averages of quadratic fit results for $K_{e3}$ and $K_{\mu3}$
slopes (\Tab{tab:l3ff}) used to determine $|V_{us}|f_+(0)$.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c}
\hline\hline
                                 & $K_L$ and $K^-$ \\
\hline
Measurements                     & 16		   \\
$\chi^2/{\rm ndf}$               & 54/13 $(7\times 10^{-7})$ \\
$\lambda_+'\times 10^3 $         & $24.9\pm1.1$ ($S=1.4$) \\
$\lambda_+'' \times 10^3 $       & $1.6\pm0.5$ ($S=1.3$)  \\
$\lambda_0\times 10^3 $          & $13.4\pm1.2$ ($S=1.9$) \\
$\rho(\lambda_+',\lambda_+'')$   & $-0.94$                \\
$\rho(\lambda_+',\lambda_0)$     & $+0.33$                \\
$\rho(\lambda_+'',\lambda_0)$    & $-0.44$                \\
$I(K^0_{e3})$                    & 0.15457(29)	      \\
$I(K^\pm_{e3})$                  & 0.15892(30)	      \\
$I(K^0_{\mu3})$                  & 0.10212(31)	      \\
$I(K^\pm_{\mu3})$                & 0.10507(32)	      \\
$\rho(I_{e3},I_{\mu3})$          & $+0.63$             \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Averages of quadratic fit results for $K_{e3}$ and $K_{\mu3}$ slopes.}
\label{tab:l3ff}
\end{table}

\section{Physics results}
\label{resulta}
\subsection{Determination of $| V_{us}|f_{+}(0)$ and
 $| V_{us}|/| V_{ud}|f_K/f_\pi$}
The value of $|V_{us}|f_{+}(0)$ has been determined from
the decay rate of kaon semileptonic decays (see~\cite{Flavia2008} for the detailed
decomposition).
using the world average values reported in previous sections
for lifetimes, branching ratios and phase space integrals.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{f0vus.eps}
\caption{ Display of $|V_{us}|f_{+}(0) $ for all channels.
\label{fig:Vusf0} }
\end{figure}
The results  are shown in figure~\ref{fig:Vusf0}
for  $K_L\to\pi e\nu$, $K_L\to\pi\mu\nu$,
$K_S\to\pi e\nu$, $K^\pm\to\pi e\nu$, $K^\pm\to\pi\mu\nu$,
and for the combination.
The average,
$|V_{us}|f_+(0)=0.21664(48)$, has an uncertainty of about of $0.2\%$.
The results from the five modes are in good agreement, the
fit probability is 58\%.
In particular, comparing the values of $|V_{us}|f_{+}(0)$
obtained from $K^0_{\ell3}$ and $K^\pm_{\ell3}$ we obtain
a value of the SU(2) breaking correction
$\delta^K_{SU(2)_{exp.}}=2.9(4)\%$
in agreement with the CHPT calculation $\delta^K_{SU(2)}= 2.36(22)\%$.
Moreover, recent analyzes
on the so-called violations of Dashen's theorem in the kaon
electromagnetic mass splitting point to $\delta^{K}_{SU(2)}$
values of about $3\%$

The test of  Lepton Flavor Universality (LFU) between
$K_{e3}$ and $K_{\mu3}$ modes constraints a possible
anomalous lepton-flavor dependence in the leading
weak vector current. It can therefore be compared
to similar tests in $\tau$ decays, but is different from the
LFU tests in the helicity-suppressed modes $\pi_{l2}$ and $K_{l2}$.
The results on the parameter
$r_{\mu e} = R_{K_{\mu3}/K_{e3}}^{\rm{Exp}}/R_{K_{\mu3}/K_{e3}}^{\rm{SM}}$ is
$r_{\mu e} = 1.0043 \pm 0.0052$,
in excellent agreement with lepton universality.
With a precision of $0.5\%$ the test in $K_{l3}$ decays
has now reached the sensitivity of other determinations:
$r_{\mu e}(\tau) = 1.0005 \pm 0.0041$ and
$r_{\mu e}(\pi) = 1.0042 \pm 0.0033$~\cite{PDG06}

An independent  determination of $V_{us}$ is obtained from $K_{\ell2}$ decays.
The most important mode is  $K^+\to\mu^+\nu$, which has been recently
updated by KLOE reaching a relative uncertainty of about $0.3\%$.
Hadronic uncertainties are minimized considering the ratio
$\Gamma(K^+\to\mu^+\nu)/\Gamma(\pi^+\to\mu^+\nu)$.
Using the world average values
of BR($K^\pm\to\mu^\pm\nu$) and of $\tau^\pm$ given in Section~\ref{BRfits}
and the value of $\Gamma(\pi^\pm\to\mu^\pm\nu)=38.408(7)~\mu s^{-1}$
from~\cite{PDG06} we obtain:
$|V_{us}|/|V_{ud}|f_K/f_\pi = 0.2760 \pm  0.0006$.

\subsection{Theoretical estimates of $f_+(0)$ and $f_K/f_\pi$ }
The main obstacle in transforming these highly precise determinations of
$|V_{us}|f_{+}(0)$ and
$|V_{us}|/|V_{ud}|f_K/f_\pi$ into a determination of
$|V_{us}|$ at the per-mil level are the theoretical
uncertainties on the hadronic parameters $f_+(0)$ and $f_K/f_\pi$.
This hadronic quantity cannot be computed in perturbative QCD, but
it is highly constrained by $SU(3)$ and chiral symmetry.
In the chiral limit and, more generally, in the $SU(3)$ limit
($m_u=m_d=m_s$) the conservation of the vector current
implies $f_+(0)$=1. Expanding around the chiral limit in powers
of light quark masses we can write
$f_+(0)= 1 + f_2 + f_4 + \ldots$
where $f_2$ and $f_4$ are the NLO and
NNLO corrections in ChPT.  The Ademollo--Gatto theorem implies that
$(f_+(0)-1)$ is at least of second order in the breaking of $SU(3)$
This in turn implies
that  $f_2$ is free from the uncertainties  of the $\mathcal{O}(p^4)$ counterterms in ChPT,
and it  can be computed with high accuracy: $f_2=-0.023$.
The difficulties in
estimating $f_+(0)$ begin with $f_4$ or at $\mathcal{O}(p^6)$ in the chiral expansion.
Several analytical approaches to determine $f_4$
have been attempted over the years,
essentially confirming the original estimate by Leutwyler and Roos.
The benefit of these new results, obtained using
more sophisticated techniques, lies in the fact that a
better control over the systematic uncertainties of the calculation
has been obtained. However, the size of the error is still around or
above $1\%$, which is not comparable  to the $0.2\%$
accuracy which has been reached for $|V_{us}|f_+(0)$.

Recent progress in lattice QCD gives us more optimism in the reduction of
the error on $f_+(0)$ below the $1\%$ level.
Most of the currently available
lattice QCD  results have been obtained with relatively heavy pions and
the chiral extrapolation represents the dominant source of uncertainty.
There is a general trend of
 lattice QCD results to be slightly lower than  analytical approaches.
An important step in the reduction of the error associated to the
chiral extrapolation  has been recently made by
the UKQCD-RBC collaboration.
Their preliminary  result $f_+(0)=0.964(5)$
is obtained from the unquenched study  with
$N_F=2+1$ flavors, with an action that has good chiral properties
on the lattice even at finite lattice
spacing (domain-wall quarks). They also reached pions masses ($\geq 330$ MeV)
much lighter than that used in  previous studies of $f_+(0)$. The
overall error is estimated to be  $~0.5\%$, which is very encouraging.

In contrast to the semileptonic vector form factor, the pseudoscalar
decay constants are not protected by the Ademollo--Gatto theorem and
receive corrections linear in the quark masses. Expanding
$f_K/f_\pi$ in power of quark masses, in analogy to $f_+(0)$,
$f_K/f_\pi= 1 + r_2 + \ldots$
one finds that the $\mathcal{O}(p^4)$ contribution $r_2$ is
already affected by local contributions and cannot be unambiguously
predicted in ChPT. As a result, in the determination of $f_K/f_\pi$
lattice QCD
has essentially no competition from purely analytical approaches.
The  present overall accuracy is about $1\%$.
The  novelty are the new  lattice results with
$N_F=2+1$ dynamical quarks  and  pions as light as  $280$~MeV,
obtained by using the so-called staggered quarks.
These analyzes cover a broad range of lattice spacings (i.e.~$a$=0.06 and 0.15 fm) and
is performed on sufficiently large physical volumes ($m_\pi L\geq 5.0$).
It should be stressed, however, that the sensitivity of
$f_K/f_\pi$ to lighter pions is larger
than in the computation of $f_+(0)$ and that  chiral extrapolations are far more
demanding in this case.
In the following analysis we will use as reference value the MILC-HPQCD
result $f_K/f_\pi=1.189(7)$.

\subsection{Test of CKM unitarity}
To determine $|V_{us}|$ and   $|V_{ud}|$
 we use the value $|V_{us}| f_{+}(0)=0.2166(5)$ ,
the result $|V_{us}|/|V_{ud}|f_K/f_\pi = 0.2760(6)$,
$f_+(0) = 0.964(5)$, and $f_K/f_\pi = 1.189(7)$.
From the above we find:
$|V_{us}|=  0.2246\pm  0.0012$ from $K_{\ell 3}$ only, and
$|V_{us}|/|V_{ud}|= 0.2321\pm  0.0015$ from $K_{\ell 2}$ only.
These determinations can be used in a fit together with the
the recent evaluation of $V_{ud}$ from
$0^+\to0^+$ nuclear beta decays: $|V_{ud}|$=0.97418$\pm$0.00026.
This global fit gives $V_{ud} = 0.97417(26)$ and $V_{us} = 0.2253(9)$,
with $\chi^2/{\rm ndf} = 0.65/1$ (42\%). This result does not make use
of CKM unitarity. If the  unitarity constraint is included,
the fit gives $V_{us}=0.2255(7)$ and $\chi^2/{\rm ndf}=0.80/2$ (67\%).
Both results are illustrated in \Fig{fig:vusuni}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{allfit.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:vusuni} Results of fits to $|V_{ud}|$, $|V_{ux}|$, and $|V_{us}|/|V_{ud}|$.}
\end{figure}
The test of CKM unitarity can be also interpreted as a test of universality of
the lepton and quark gauge couplings.
Using the results of the fit (without imposing unitarity) we obtain:
$G_{\rm CKM} \equiv G_\mu \left[ |V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2 \right]^{1/2}
= (1.1662 \pm  0.0004)\times 10^{-5}\  {\rm GeV}^{-2}$,
in perfect agreement with the value obtained from the measurement
of the muon lifetime:
$G_{\mu} = (1.166371 \pm  0.000007)\times 10^{-5}\  {\rm GeV}^{-2}.$
The current accuracy of the lepton-quark universality
sets important constraints on model building beyond the SM.
For example, the presence of  a $Z^\prime$ would affect the relation between
$G_{\rm CKM}$ and $G_{\mu}$. In case of a $Z^\prime$ from $SO(10)$ grand unification theories
we obtain  $m_{Z^\prime}>700$~GeV at 95\% CL, to be compared with the  $m_{Z^\prime}>720$~GeV
bound  set through the direct collider searches~\cite{PDG06}.
In a similar way, the unitarity constraint also provides useful bounds in various
supersymmetry-breaking scenarios.

\subsection{$K_{\ell 2}$ sensitivity to new physics}
A particularly interesting test is the comparison of the $|V_{us}|$
value extracted from the helicity-suppressed $K_{\ell 2}$ decays
with respect to the value extracted from the  helicity-allowed $K_{\ell 3}$  modes.
To reduce theoretical uncertainties from $f_K$ and electromagnetic
corrections in $K_{\ell 2}$, we exploit the ratio $BR(K_{\ell2})/BR(\pi_{\ell2})$ and
we study the quantity
$$
R_{l23}=\left|\frac{V_{us}(K_{\ell 2})}{V_{us}(K_{\ell 3})}
\frac{V_{ud}(0^+\to 0^+)}{V_{ud}(\pi_{\ell 2})}\right|\,.
$$
Within the SM, $R_{l23}=1$, while deviation from 1 can be induced by
non-vanishing scalar- or  right-handed currents.
Notice that in $R_{l23}$ the  hadronic uncertainties enter through  $(f_K/f_\pi)/f_+(0)$.
In the case of effect of scalar currents due to a charged Higgs,
the unitarity relation between
$|V_{ud}|$ extracted from $0^+\to0^+$ nuclear beta decays and $|V_{us}|$ extracted from
$K_{\ell3}$ remains valid as soon as form factors are experimentally determined.
This constrain  together with the experimental information of $\log C^{MSSM}$
can be used in the global fit to improve the accuracy of the determination
of $R_{l23}$, which in this scenario turns to be
$\left. R_{l23} \right|^{\rm exp}_{\rm scalar} =  1.004 \pm  0.007$.
Here $(f_K/f_\pi)/f_+(0)$ has been fixed from lattice. This ratio
is the key quantity to be improved in order to reduce
present uncertainty on $R_{l23}$.
This  measurement of $R_{l23}$ can be used to set bounds
on the charged Higgs mass and $\tan\beta$.
Figure \ref{fig:higgskmunu} shows the excluded region at 95\%
CL in the $M_H$--$\tan\beta$ plane.
The measurement of  BR($B \to \tau \nu$)
can be also used to set a similar  bound in the  $M_H$--$\tan\beta$ plane.
While $B\to\tau \nu$ can exclude quite an extensive region of this plane,
there is an uncovered region in the exclusion corresponding
to a destructive interference between the charged-Higgs
and the SM amplitude. This region is fully covered by the $K\to \mu \nu$ result.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{higgskmnu.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:higgskmunu}
Excluded region in the charged Higgs mass-$\tan\beta$ plane.
The region excluded by  $B\to \tau \nu $ is also indicated.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{A test of lattice calculation}
\label{sec:CTtest}

The vector and scalar form factors $f_{+,0}(t)$ are analytic functions in the complex
$t$--plane, except for a cut along the positive real axis, starting at the
first physical threshold $t_{\rm th} = (m_K+m_\pi)^2$,
where they develop discontinuities. They are real for $t<t_{\rm th}$.
Cauchy's theorem implies that $f_{+,0}(t)$ can be written as
a dispersive integral along the physical cut where all possible on-shell
intermediate states contribute to its imaginary part.
A number of subtractions is needed to make the integral convergent.
Particularly appealing is an improved dispersion
relation recently proposed
where two subtractions are performed at $t=0$
(where by definition, $\tilde f_0(0)\equiv 1$) and at
the so-called Callan-Treiman point $t_{CT} \equiv (m_K^2-m_\pi^2)$.
Since the Callan-Treiman relation fixes the value of scalar form factor at $t_{CT}$
to the ratio $(f_K/f_\pi)/f_+(0)$,
the dispersive parametrization for the scalar form factor
allows to transform the available measurements of the scalar form factor
into a precise information on $(f_K/f_\pi)/f_+(0)$, completely independent of
the lattice estimates.
Figure \ref{fig:CTtest} shows the values for $f_+(0)$
determined from the scalar form factor slope
measurements obtained using a dispersive parametrization and the Callan-Treiman relation, and
$f_K/f_\pi=1.189(7)$. from result on the FF slope using the dispersive
parameterization
The value of $f_+(0)=0.964(5)$ from UKQCD/RBC is also shown.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{cttest.eps}
\caption{Values for $f_+(0)$ determined from the scalar form factor slope using
the Callan-Treiman relation and  $f_K/f_\pi=1.189(7)$. \label{fig:CTtest} }
\end{figure}

\section{The special role of of $\Gamma(K_{e2})/\Gamma(K_{\mu2})$}
\label{ke2}
The ratio $R_K = \Gamma({K_{\mu2}})/\Gamma({K_{e2}})$ can be precisely calculated
within the Standard Model.
Neglecting radiative corrections, it is given by
$
R_K^{(0)} = \frac{m_e^2}{m_\mu^2} \: \frac{(m_K^2 - m_e^2)^2}{(m_K^2 - m_\mu^2)^2}
= 2.569 \times 10^{-5},
$
and reflects the strong helicity suppression of the electron channel.
Radiative corrections have been computed with effective theories,
yielding the final SM prediction
$
R^{\rm SM}_K = R_K^{(0)} ( 1 + \delta R_K^{\rm{rad.corr.}})
= 2.569 \times 10^{-5} \times ( 0.9622 \pm 0.0004 ) =(2.477 \pm 0.001) \times 10^{-5}.
$
Because of the helicity suppression within then SM, the
$K_{e2}$  amplitude is a prominent candidate
for possible sizable contributions from physics beyond the SM. Moreover,
when normalizing to the $K_{\mu2}$ rate, we obtain an extremely precise
prediction of the $K_{e2}$ width within the SM. In order to be visible
in the $K_{e2}/K_{\mu2}$ ratio, the new physics must  violate lepton
flavor universality.

Recently it has been pointed out that in a supersymmetric framework
sizable violations of  lepton universality can be expected
in $K_{l2}$ decays.
At the tree level, lepton flavor violating terms are forbidden in the MSSM.
However, these appear at the one-loop level, where an effective
$H^+ l \nu_\tau$ Yukawa interaction is generated.
The non-SM contribution to $R_K$ can be written as
$
R_K^{\rm{LFV}} \approx R_K^{\rm{SM}} \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{m_K^4}{M_{H^\pm}^4} \right) \left( \frac{m_\tau^2}{M_e^2} \right) |\Delta_{13}|^2 \tan^6 \beta \right]{\mbox ,}
$ where $\Delta_{13}$, the lepton flavor violating coupling , being generated at the
loop level, could reach values of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$.
For moderately large $\tan \beta$ values, this contribution may therefore
enhance $R_K$ by up to a few percent.

Experimental knowledge of $K_{e2}/K_{\mu2}$ has been poor so far.
The current world average
of $R_K = \BR{K_{e2}}/\BR{K_{\mu2}}= (2.45 \pm 0.11) \times 10^{-5}$ dates back to three
experiments
of the 1970s~\cite{PDG06} and has a precision of about 5\%.
Three new preliminary measurements were reported by NA48/2 and KLOE
 (see~\cite{Flavia2008} for details).
Both, the KLOE and the NA48/2 measurements are inclusive with respect to final state
radiation  contribution due to bremsstrahlung.
Combining these new results with the current PDG value yields a current world average of
$R_K  = ( 2.457 \pm 0.032 ) \times 10^{-5}$, with a relative error of $1.3\%$,
a factor three more precise than the previous world average.
This value is in very good agreement with the SM expectation
and gives strong constraints
for $\tan \beta$ and $M_{H^\pm}$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:susylimit}.
For values of $\Delta_{13} \approx 5 \times 10^{-4}$
and  $\tan \beta > 50$ the charged Higgs masses is pushed
above 1000~GeV/$c^2$ at 95\% CL.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{rklim.eps}
\caption{Exclusion limits at $95\%$ CL on $\tan \beta$ and the charged
Higgs mass $M_{H^\pm}$
from $|V_{us}|_{K\ell2}/|V_{us}|_{K\ell3}$ for different
values of $\Delta_{13}$. }
\label{fig:susylimit}
\end{figure}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Posted on January 21, 2023 by Delaware Gazette
Helping small businesses
Revolving Loan Fund relaunched in county
Pictured are several restaurants on South Sandusky Street in downtown Delaware.
Joshua Keeran | The Gazette
Small businesses in Delaware County will again have an outlet to assist with navigating tough economic times as Delaware County Treasurer Don Rankey Jr. announced the relaunching of the Revolving Loan Fund on Jan. 9.
The fund, which was established in 2020 to aid struggling businesses during COVID, allows Delaware County businesses to borrow up to $50,000 at 4% interest. All small businesses in the county are eligible for the program, and there are no restrictions on how the funds can be used.
Loans carry a five-year payment term, and a $1,000 processing fee will be added to the principal amount. Interest-only payments are available for the first six months of the loan term. According to a release announcing the relaunch, the fund has assets totaling $5 million.
"It's a good time to relaunch the Revolving Loan Fund," Rankey said in a release. "It was with excellent foresight that the county commissioners developed this fund to help our businesses during the COVID pandemic. While the pandemic is largely over, our businesses are still dealing with an 8.5% inflation rate, high gasoline costs, and supply chain problems. We needed to again reach out to our Delaware County small business owners with a loan program that will help them through this recession and difficult economic times."
The Revolving Loan Fund was launched after Delaware County officials, the Delaware County Finance Authority, and Clerk of Courts Natalie Fravel contributed $3 million. Both Orange and Liberty townships each added $250,000, bringing the initial funding total to $3.5 million.
Officials with the program have been working for a year to "retool" the Revolving Loan Fund, which will be administered by Buckeye State Bank.
Former Delaware County Economic Development Director Bob Lamb has been selected as the fund's program director. Other committee members are Liberty Township Trustee Shyra Eichhorn, Orange Township Fiscal Officer Lisa Kraft, Delaware County Administrator Tracie Davies, Delaware County Economic Development Director Monica Conners, Delaware County Finance Authority board member Kent Shafer, and Dave Schockman of Buckeye State Bank.
"There is a strong economic need for this type of fund because, as treasurer, I saw a substantial uptick in real estate tax delinquencies in the second half of 2022," Rankey said. "A lot of those delinquencies can be attributed to businesses that are having difficulty operating in this current economic environment, and that's certainly an indicator that this program is needed."
Rankey went on to say, "It's a great program, and we're fortunate to have elected officials in Delaware County who saw the value in the Revolving Loan Fund and who came together to provide the financial resources to create it. All of the individuals and entities who helped create the Revolving Loan Fund deserve our thanks."
Business owners can apply for loans online at joinbsb.com or by visiting the bank, which is located at 9494 Wedgewood Blvd. in Powell.
https://www.delgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2023/01/web1_DSC_0805-1.jpgPictured are several restaurants on South Sandusky Street in downtown Delaware. Joshua Keeran | The Gazette
Hi! A visitor to our site felt the following article might be of interest to you: Helping small businesses. Here is a link to that story: https://www.delgazette.com/news/100629/helping-small-businesses-2


Two valuable under-bridge access machines in our rental fleet are the Bridgewalker Type I and II. These are our own patented units, and designed to excel in a wide range of circumstances.
The Bridgewalker Type I offers the smallest working footprint with a variety of configurations.
The Bridgewalker Type I requires only 3 ft width, and is self-propelled to move down a working path as needed. Though small, it still boasts an under-bridge payload capacity, and capability, equal to many larger UBITs.
Developed and patented by Bridge Master Inc., our Bridgewalker Type I was created to meet a specific range of requirements that we could not find in other available units. All components are manufactured in the USA.
The unique design and purpose of the Bridgewalker Type I unit is to operate in tight spaces where other cranes are not able. This may be the perfect solution for your next limited space utility or inspection project.
The Bridgewalker Type II is a versatile, medium-scale trailer-mounted UBIT with maximum load capacity.
The Bridgewalker Type II incorporates a gooseneck trailer with a two-level safety deck. There is fore and aft tool storage, engineered for quick and efficient access. Safety stairs are located on either sides of the main deck for optional lane staging positions. Includes built-in auxiliary compressors.
Our Bridgewalker Type II was developed and patented by Bridge Master Inc. It was designed to offer the latest operational safety features, and support a significant payload to increase project efficiency. This advantage allows more personnel, equipment, and materials at hand, to save time and money.
has led to the development of many of these hybrid features, and cannot not be found on any other competing units.


text:
Q: Drupal Rendering a block by click a value in another block I have two content types Book and chapter . Every chapter is linked to a single book content type by using reference module. i have two blocks which list books in one block and the second one is used to show the chapters in that book.
Here are my questions
1) How to display the related chapter in the second block?
2) How to re-render the second block when clicking the first block value ? That is when clicking the book the chapters block should be renrendered and display the referenced chapters of that book .
Books and chapter are just for example I use 2 different custom content type. please dont suggest me books module.
If any module available for this scenario please let me know

A: What you could do, is to give the chapter buttons/links a query parameter. So when a user clicks on a book, it reloads the page with the current URL + ?book=happybook.
Then implement a hook_block_view() in a module somewhere.
https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules%21block%21block.api.php/function/hook_block_view/7
or hook_block_view_alter()
https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules!block!block.api.php/function/hook_block_view_alter/7
What you can then do is, read the query parameter in the hook_block_view function and depending on that, show or hide certain content, alter it, etc.
Does that help? Or do I need to describe it a bit more.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I just did it yesterday WITHOUT pulling the turbo. It wasn't that bad, just make sure sure you tighten the 3 mounting bolts for the cooler FIRST before you tighten up the hose going from the thermostat to the oil cooler. I didn't and it leaked right where the coolant hose goes into the oil cooler.
To get to the bolt that holds the hose I referenced above, I used a E10 socket on a wobbly attachment then a 8" extension hooked up to my ratchet. When you go to install the bolt, I wrapped some electrical tape around the head of the bolt once it was in the E10 socket. That helps hold it in the socket when you go to thread it in.
Any questions, PM me or post here.
cruzer1026 and plano-doug like this.
wobbly attachment? do you mean universal socket adapter?
did you purchase a whole new oil cooler? or did you just replace the 3 seals?
Another tip is when you go to reinstall the oil cooler, go from the bottom to get it past the block and turbo. I struggled trying to do it from the top, then went underneath the car and it was much easier for some reason.
I didn't buy a new cooler. I just replaced the internal seal. I also use a new seal for where it attaches to the block and new O ring where it inserts in the other part of the block.
Hello from Europe. I have the exact same engine, on an Opel Astra 1.4 Turbo. Oil from the oil cooler is dripping onto the exhaust/catalyst and it burns. My mechanic told me that I should replace the whole assembly and not just the seals. From his experience he said that after replacing the seals, the oil pressure will rise inside the oil cooler, something that will force the oil cooler to fail within the next month after the replacement of the seals.
So my question to those of you that have replaced only the seals, is this: Did you have oil cooler failure?
It sounds like this mechanic is wanting a reason to charge you for more parts since there is a markup on parts. Replace the seals, preferably at a different repair facility. Could end up with a loose bolt so you come back in a month or two and him tell you, I told you so, to order a new assembly and charge you again.
He claims that he has changed oil cooler seals in other models of this make, and they all failed. I have also seen in here in other threads, people that went to the dealers in order to repair the leak, and the dealer wanted to change the assembly. So, is the possibility of oil cooler failure possible?


The Palm fragrance is evocative of a romantic evening in the Islands. Hidden coves unleash the aromas of coastal palms, native lemons and green dates. Crushed sea salt fills the air, enhancing faint notes of vetiver and wild cyclamen.