The Cubs did not leave August 16 with much to celebrate after an 11-4 loss to the Cardinals, but Pete Crow-Armstrong gave them the kind of moment that can still matter in a larger award race. His two-run homer with two outs in the third inning was the WPA play of the game for Chicago, a reminder that even in a lopsided loss, one swing can shape how a player’s season is read.
That is where the NL MVP odds conversation gets interesting. Crow-Armstrong was not the story of the game in the conventional sense, because the Cubs were beaten badly and Alec Burleson’s two-run homer in the first inning helped set the tone for the Cardinals. But award cases are rarely built only on clean outcomes. They are built on impact, timing and the way a player keeps showing up in the moments that briefly change the shape of a game.
Why the homer mattered
In a game the Cubs lost 11-4, Crow-Armstrong’s homer stood out because it was one of the few plays that briefly shifted leverage. Two-out damage matters for a reason: it turns a nearly finished inning into a real threat, and it forces a pitcher to pay for one extra mistake. That is exactly the sort of event that can carry weight in the WPA lens, even if the final score later overwhelms it.
The Cubs, though, were still well into safe territory overall. This loss did not suddenly redefine their season, and the long odds of winning the division only got longer after the weekend. Earlier in the weekend, they had lost three of four games by a combined score of 26-11, which is the bigger warning sign than any single play.
That context matters because the Brewers were taking three of four from the Dodgers at the same time. So while the Cubs were absorbing a rough stretch, the club chasing them was doing the opposite. That is how a division race tightens without always feeling dramatic in the moment: one team slips, another team stacks wins, and the gap starts to speak for itself.
There is still no need to overstate what one homer means. A two-run shot in a loss does not solve a team’s problems, and it does not settle an award race by itself. But it does reinforce the case that Crow-Armstrong keeps finding a way to influence games, even when the Cubs do not control the result. If the Cubs are going to stay relevant in the standings, they will need more than one swing like that. If Crow-Armstrong is going to stay relevant in the NL MVP odds discussion, moments like this are part of the evidence.
