Cubs “Heroes and Goats” vs. the Yankees spotlights Pete Crow-Armstrong as the standout, even as outcomes tilt elsewhere

Baseball debates tend to get stuck on box scores and batting averages, but one Cubs-focused feature is taking a different angle in its latest matchup recap. In a post centered on the Cubs versus the Yankees, Yahoo Sports’ “Heroes and Goats” concept assigns a spotlight using win probability added (WPA), an all-in-one way to estimate how particular plays swing a team’s chances of winning.

In the installment published Aug. 3, the writer’s conclusion is blunt: the Cubs’ “goat” side of the ledger, driven by plays that reduced win probability, outweighs the “hero” side by a lot. The column’s framing matters because it turns a typical postgame narrative into a head-to-head comparison of influence, not volume. Even if a player creates something positive, the overall equilibrium of leverage and timing across the game can still land on the negative side.

Within that structure, Pete Crow-Armstrong is cast as the “superhero” for the Cubs. The feature title makes the point directly, presenting him as the player who, in the writer’s WPA-based tally, delivered the most meaningful uplift for his club relative to the rest of the field. The post also indicates that the rest of the recap will be presented through WPA numbers and “plays of the game,” reinforcing that this is meant to be a play-by-play style evaluation rather than a traditional highlight reel.

The feature’s mechanics are the real story. WPA is designed to translate game state into a probability win model, so a single swing can matter differently depending on inning, outs, base runners, and score. That means a routine-looking moment can produce a sizable WPA shift if it happens in a high-leverage context, while a good-looking stat line can come with less impact if it occurs when the game is already trending strongly in one direction.

For Cubs fans, the “Heroes and Goats” approach offers a way to interpret a tough outcome without reducing the discussion to one at-bat or one defensive sequence. It also creates a consistent framework for memory and comparison across matchups, since each installment can be evaluated using the same concept: who helped win expectancy most, and who hurt it most.

The post notes that the series includes a standing system, referenced as the “Rizzo Award” standings, and says those totals will be updated when another contributor returns. That detail points to the feature operating like a season-long internal scoreboard, where “hero” and “goat” labels accumulate meaning over time rather than staying confined to a single game recap.

The article also includes a poll so readers can vote on their choice for Player of the Game. That matters because it highlights an ongoing tension in baseball storytelling: fan perception often aligns with memorable moments, while WPA often aligns with measurable impact on winning chances. The Cubs-Yankees matchup becomes the test case, with the writer’s own conclusion anchored on the overall WPA imbalance and Crow-Armstrong singled out as the game’s most helpful performer by that metric.

What to watch next is how the series evolves as it moves from one opponent to another. If Crow-Armstrong continues to surface as a consistent “hero” in WPA terms, it would suggest his contributions are translating into leverage situations, not just isolated positive plays. If the “goat” side remains dominant, the feature’s tone may continue to emphasize that even strong individual moments can be swallowed by broader game swings. Either way, the column is a reminder that in baseball, influence is not distributed evenly across the lineup or across the innings, and WPA is built to capture that unevenness.