Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1
It's been more than 3-4 starts. I originally quoted since the beginning of September, which is actually 8 starts (half at home and half on the road). Dang near all (in fact, all but 1) have been great. Homer K's more batters and has a near equal walk rate. His ERA+ is better as well.
You can claim "cherrypicking" or "small sample size" all you want, but the reality of is that it's not unreasonable to assume that Homer is a better bet than Leake now and moving forward.
In the start immediately preceding the no-hitter, he gave up 5 runs on a pair of homers. In the two starts prior to that, he only gave up one run apiece in a combined 14 innings, but he only struck out eight, and gave up almost as many fly balls as he did grounders. Those two starts were certainly not great.
The two starts before those three were great but they were also against the worst team in baseball.
Really now, the last three starts are clouding peoples' recollection of what he was doing prior to that point. Before the no-hitter, people were still talking about the inconsistency and all of a sudden now those September starts are being revised to indicate the start of a trend. That isn't consistent with how people were viewing those games after they happened.
I still don't know why you're so concerned with being "better than Leake moving forward." Does it really matter that much?