MLB Power Rankings
Week 27, 2026 · as of 2026-09-27 · all 30 teams rated
Every team rated in points on a neutral field— a rating gap is the spread. Movement, strength of schedule, and Earl's take, re-cut each week. How it works · RSS
latest snapshot
| # | Team | Rec | Rating | Inj | Earl's Take |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Δ – | 103-59 | +1.4 | — | Milwaukee sits at No. 1 with a 1.399 runs-neutral rating, up 0.259 in a week, and their 103-59 record confirms this isn't a fluke. The vs_market gap of 0.31 says the market still hasn't fully priced them in, so this is a buy — their rating implies they should be laying roughly 1.4 runs on a neutral field, a half-run more than a typical elite-team line. With no key players unavailable and a neutral schedule, there's no reason to discount the number. |
| 2 | Δ – | 89-73 | +1.1 | — | The Cubs grade out at +1.15 runs over an average team on a neutral field, second in the league, and that rating is trending up sharply with a +0.227 jump in the last week. The 89-73 record and thin 0.034 strength of schedule say the résumé undersells the underlying form, so this is a buy — the market's 0.49 vs. spread suggests the number hasn't fully caught up to a team that's a half-run better than a typical home favorite. No key players are docked, so there's no injury discount baked in. |
| 3 | Δ – | 100-62 | +1.1 | — | The Dodgers rate at 1.062 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, up a sharp 0.242 from last week, but that's still well below their 1.404 prior-season mark, so this is a team trending back toward elite rather than already there. Their -0.86 vs. the market says the number is shading them richer than this rating justifies, making them a mild sell at current prices. With no key players unavailable and a near-neutral schedule (-0.04), the rating is clean, so the gap to prior form is the real story to watch. |
| 4 | Δ – | 93-68 | +0.8 | — | The Yankees rate at 0.82 runs better than average on a neutral field, fourth in the league, and the rating is trending up sharply with a +0.315 weekly change against a near-neutral schedule (-0.033). At 93-68 with no injury dock and no key players unavailable, this is a buy: the 0.82 rating sits well below their 1.239 prior-season mark, so the market may still be pricing them off last year's form rather than this week's surge. |
| 5 | Δ ▲1 | 91-71 | +0.7 | — | San Diego sits 5th with a 0.736 runs-neutral rating, up a strong 0.467 from last week, and its 91-71 record against a roughly neutral schedule (-0.015) backs that up. The rating is slightly below last year's 0.854 prior, so this is a solid team trending up rather than a fluke. With no key players unavailable and a 0.5 vs-market mark, the market is pricing them fairly, so I'd treat them as a hold rather than a buy-low. |
| 6 | Δ ▼1 | 98-64 | +0.7 | — | Tampa Bay grades out at 0.715 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, good for 6th in the league, and the rating is climbing fast with a +0.356 jump versus last week. The 98-64 record is backed by a market-beating +0.12 versus the closing line, so this is a legitimate buy rather than a team propped up by results. With a near-neutral schedule (-0.033), no injury dock, and a rating that already dwarfs the prior-season mark of -0.097, I'm treating the Rays as underrated and laying the runs wherever the number sits below their true edge. |
| 7 | Δ ▲2 | 94-68 | +0.5 | — | ATL rates 0.468 runs better than average on a neutral field, good for 7th in the league, and that number jumped 0.346 in a week off a modest 0.08 schedule strength, so this is a real buy rather than a soft schedule artifact. At 94-68 with no docked injury points, the rating is clean, but the -0.17 vs market says the number is already shaded slightly against them, meaning the edge is thinner than the rank suggests. I'd treat them as a slight overrated play relative to the price, not a team to chase at a full run of value. |
| 8 | Δ ▲2 | 87-75 | +0.4 | — | Boston sits at No. 8 with a +0.444 runs-neutral rating, up a hefty 0.341 from last week, though that jump comes against a near-neutral schedule (-0.007) and still trails last season's 0.921 prior. At 87-75 with no key players unavailable, this is a healthy but not elite team, and the market at -0.14 versus our rating suggests a slight buy-low window rather than a squad to back at inflated prices. |
| 9 | Δ ▲3 | 76-86 | +0.4 | — | Detroit grades out at +0.41 runs better than average on a neutral field, a modest rank-9 rating that sits well below the market's 0.39-vs-spread read, so this is a team the number may be shading slightly rich. The +0.505 jump in rating versus last week is the real signal here, a sharp upward move against a soft -0.09 strength of schedule that says the recent form is legitimately better than the 76-86 record implies. With no key players unavailable and a prior-season rating of -0.243, this looks like a quiet buy-low on a club the standings are underselling. |
| 10 | Δ ▼3 | 84-78 | +0.4 | — | The White Sox rate 0.402 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, up a sharp 0.211 in a week, and their 84-78 record against a slightly soft schedule (-0.07) suggests the rating is real rather than schedule-inflated. That's a massive jump from a -0.559 prior-season rating, and with no key players unavailable and zero injury points docked, this is a legitimate buy rather than a fluke. At 0.63 against the market, they're a modest but worthwhile edge — the rating implies a spread of roughly -0.4 runs in a neutral matchup, so back them when the line prices them closer to a coin flip. |
| 11 | Δ ▲2 | 74-88 | +0.3 | — | The Mets grade out at 11th with a +0.338 runs-neutral rating, a big jump of +0.455 from last week and a full swing from last season's -0.186, so this is a clear buy on the underlying form even though the 74-88 record says otherwise. The market's +0.32 vs. their rating suggests the number is roughly in line, but a team trending this hard upward with a modest 0.095 strength of schedule is one to watch for value before the market fully catches up. No key players are docked, so this rating is clean and the recent surge looks real rather than injury-inflated. |
| 12 | Δ ▼4 | 88-74 | +0.3 | — | Philadelphia sits at a 0.292 rating (12th), meaning they're roughly a quarter-run better than an average team on a neutral field, and the 0.108 jump from last week plus a prior-season rating of 0.871 suggests the underlying quality is real and trending up. At 88-74 against a slightly above-average schedule (0.085), the market's -0.7 vs. their rating says the public is still pricing them below the model, which makes them a modest buy at current spreads. No key players are docked, so the rating is clean — worth backing when the line sits near a pick'em. |
| 13 | Δ ▲4 | 82-80 | +0.2 | — | Pittsburgh sits at 13th with a +0.227 runs-neutral rating, a massive +0.468 jump from last week, and a modest 0.106 strength of schedule that makes the surge look legitimate rather than schedule-inflated. The market has them at +0.17 versus their rating, so they're still being priced slightly below their true form — a quiet buy signal. With an 82-80 record and no key players unavailable, this is a team trending up that the number hasn't fully caught up to yet. |
| 14 | Δ ▼3 | 86-76 | +0.2 | — | Arizona sits at 14th with a +0.192 runs-neutral rating, up a sharp 0.154 from last week, and the +0.25 vs-market gap says the books are still pricing them a touch below where this model has them. That rating is well off last season's 0.349, so this is a buy-low on a team trending up rather than a sell. With no key players docked and a soft 0.035 strength of schedule, the number looks like a modest but real edge against a typical spread. |
| 15 | Δ ▼1 | 85-77 | +0.2 | — | Cleveland sits at a 0.171 runs-neutral rating, 15th in the league and a modest step down from last year's 0.413, so this is a team trending sideways rather than a real contender. The rating jumped 0.375 in a week against a soft -0.1 schedule, which smells like noise from weak competition rather than a genuine buy signal. With a -0.09 vs-market gap, the market is slightly higher on them than the numbers justify, making them a mild sell in spots where the spread gets inflated. |
| 16 | Δ ▲3 | 79-82 | +0.1 | — | Baltimore sits at 16th with a +0.123 runs-neutral rating, up a hefty 0.583 from last week, and the market has already caught on at 0.15 — this is a buy that's getting priced in fast. The prior-season rating of -0.077 against a 79-82 record says the underlying form is real improvement, not noise, and with no key players unavailable and a neutral schedule (0.011), there's no dock holding them back. At a rating this close to average, they're live as a small underdog or near pick'em and worth backing before the number fully adjusts. |
| 17 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | +0.1 | — | Miami sits at a +0.092 runs-neutral rating, 17th in the league, but the trend is what matters: the rating jumped +0.332 in a week off a -0.757 prior-season baseline, so this is a real buy signal rather than noise. The 80-82 record and +0.4 vs-market mark say the market is still pricing them near last year's bad team, which is exactly the gap to exploit. With no key players unavailable and a strength of schedule of 0.095, the rating should hold up, so I'm backing Miami to beat spreads that assume the old version. |
| 18 | Δ ▼3 | 77-85 | -0.0 | — | WSH sits at 18th with a rating of -0.006 runs, essentially a league-average team on a neutral field, but the +0.229 weekly jump is the real signal here. The +0.71 vs-market mark says the market has been underrating them relative to this number, making them a modest buy at current prices. The 77-85 record and -1.746 prior-season rating are stale anchors, so trust the recent rating climb over the win-loss column. |
| 19 | Δ ▲2 | 81-81 | -0.1 | — | Houston sits at 19th with a -0.149 runs-neutral rating, essentially a .500 team (81-81) that has been feasting on a soft schedule (-0.253), so the recent +0.562 rating jump deserves skepticism. At -0.26 versus the market, the number is already shading against them, meaning there's no value buying this rating as a favorite. This is a sell on any inflated line until the schedule stiffens and the underlying run value catches up to the record. |
| 20 | Δ ▼2 | 79-83 | -0.2 | — | Toronto sits at 20th with a -0.194 runs-neutral rating, a modest 0.217 weekly gain that's still well below last season's 0.736 prior rating, so this is a team trending the right way but from a much lower baseline. The -0.31 vs-market gap says the market has been pricing them slightly better than this number, making them a mild sell rather than a buy at current spreads. With no key players unavailable and a near-neutral 0.045 strength of schedule, there's no hidden upside here, just a below-average club whose rating already reflects its full healthy roster. |
| 21 | Δ ▼1 | 77-85 | -0.3 | — | St. Louis sits at 21st with a -0.284 rating, meaning they're roughly a quarter-run worse than an average team on a neutral field, but the +0.19 weekly jump and a 77-85 record against a tough 0.129 schedule suggest the market's been shading them too harshly. The +0.2 vs-market mark confirms they've quietly outperformed expectations, and with a prior-season rating of -1.046, this is a clear buy-low on a team trending up. No key absences are docked, so the rating reflects their full roster. |
| 22 | Δ ▲2 | 77-85 | -0.5 | — | Minnesota sits at 22nd with a -0.455 runs-neutral rating, still below average but trending up sharply with a +0.462 weekly change and a jump from last year's -0.869 prior rating. The market has them at -0.15 versus my number, so there's a small but real buy signal here as the rating climbs toward respectability. With no key players unavailable and a neutral schedule, this is a team quietly improving under the radar rather than one to fade. |
| 23 | Δ ▲3 | 65-97 | -0.5 | — | San Francisco sits at 23rd with a -0.505 runs-neutral rating, meaning they'd be roughly a half-run underdog to an average team on a neutral field, and that's actually a meaningful jump of 0.705 from last week. The 65-97 record and 0.53 vs-market mark say the market has basically priced them correctly all year, so there's no obvious buy-low edge here. With a modest 0.073 strength of schedule and no key absences docked, this is a bad team that's merely playing closer to its true level lately, not a hidden contender. |
| 24 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | -0.5 | — | Texas grades out at -0.534 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, 24th in the league, and the market is even lower at -0.56, so there's no real edge either way on this number. The 0.279 jump from last week is a genuine buy signal, but the -0.195 strength of schedule means that 80-82 record came against soft competition and the rating is inflated by it. This is a sell-high candidate: the schedule gets harder and a team that was a +0.424 prior season is now a below-average unit. |
| 25 | Δ ▼3 | 69-93 | -0.8 | — | KC rates at -0.778 runs, 25th in the league, a clear step below average and a big fall from last year's +0.456 prior rating. The schedule has been nearly neutral (-0.014) and the rating is essentially flat week to week (-0.012), so this is a genuine talent gap, not a schedule artifact. With a 69-93 record and the market only a tenth of a run off the model (-0.1), there's no edge here either way — this team is priced about right, so I'd pass on KC as a buy and look elsewhere for value. |
| 26 | Δ ▼1 | 62-100 | -0.9 | — | The Angels sit at 26th with a -0.871 run rating, meaning they'd be roughly a -1.9 run underdog to a league-average team on a neutral field — a fair reflection of a 62-100 club that has climbed 0.139 runs off last week's mark but still grades near the bottom. That -0.871 rating against a soft -0.153 schedule is a mild buy signal, and the 0.08 vs-market gap says the number has already caught up to the modest improvement, so there's no edge laying the price. With no key absences docked and the rating already accounting for health, this is a team to fade as a favorite and only back at a plus-money price. |
| 27 | Δ – | 76-86 | -0.9 | — | Seattle sits at 27th with a -0.882 runs-neutral rating, and the 0.509 weekly jump is the only real positive signal here. The market has been pricing them about 1.3 runs worse than this rating, so there's a mild buy-low case if the recent uptick is real, but a 76-86 record against a soft -0.159 schedule says the baseline is genuinely weak. |
| 28 | Δ ▲1 | 75-87 | -1.0 | — | Cincinnati sits at -1.033 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, a 28th-place rating that's actually up 0.517 from last week and well off a 0.25 prior-season mark, so this is a team trending the right direction despite a 75-87 record. The market has them at -0.35 versus our number, meaning the price already gives them more credit than the rating does, which makes them a mild sell at current spreads rather than a buy. With no key players unavailable and a schedule that graded out at 0.208, there's no injury or strength-of-schedule excuse hiding in this profile. |
| 29 | Δ ▼1 | 58-104 | -1.3 | — | Colorado sits at -1.32 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, 29th in the league, but that's a real 0.186-run jump from last week and a massive climb from a -2.402 prior-season rating, so the arrow is genuinely pointing up. The 58-104 record and 0.43 mark against the market say the public has been overpricing this team all year, which makes them a live buy as a home dog where the market still treats them like the old doormat. |
| 30 | Δ – | 64-98 | -2.0 | — | Oakland is the worst team in the league by a wide margin, with a -2.034 runs-neutral rating that's a full tier below anyone else, and the 64-98 record backs it up. The market already knows it, though: at -0.69 versus the market, this team is priced even lower than its rating suggests, so there's no value in laying against them. The 0.464 weekly improvement is a modest positive trend, but on a -0.109 prior-season baseline and a near-neutral schedule, this is a sell on any rating bump, not a buy. |
Rating is in points on a neutral field: a team's rating minus its opponent's approximates the spread. Rec is the team's W-L-T through this week. Δ Wk is movement vs last week. Inj is the rating points docked for key players ruled out/doubtful/questionable this week. SOS is the average rating of opponents faced, in points vs league average (negative = easier schedule). vs Mkt is Earl's rating minus the market's (from closing lines), placed on Earl's points scale — positive means Earl is higher on the team than the market. How Earl rates teams →