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 rating of 1.399 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, up a massive 0.259 from last week, and that 103-59 record confirms this isn't a fluke. The market is still catching up, as the 0.31 versus-market edge shows this team has been undervalued relative to the number all year. With no key players unavailable and a neutral schedule, this rating is clean, so buy Milwaukee and lay the runs while the price still lags the underlying strength. |
| 2 | Δ – | 89-73 | +1.1 | — | Chicago is the No. 2 team in my ratings at 1.15 runs better than average on a neutral field, and that number jumped 0.227 in a week, so this is a club the market hasn't fully caught up to yet. At 89-73 with a 0.49 mark against the number, they've been a coin-flip for bettors all year, which tells me the rating edge hasn't shown up in the price. With no key players docked and a near-neutral schedule, I'm buying Chicago as an underrated side going forward. |
| 3 | Δ – | 100-62 | +1.1 | — | The Dodgers grade out at 1.062 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, third in the league, and that number jumped 0.242 in the past week even against a slightly tougher-than-average schedule (-0.04). But the market is pricing them 0.86 runs better than this rating implies, which makes them a clear sell at the window rather than a buy. The bigger red flag is the drop from a 1.404 prior-season rating to 1.062 now, so treat this as a good team the public is overvaluing, not the juggernaut the 100-62 record suggests. |
| 4 | Δ – | 93-68 | +0.8 | — | The Yankees rate at 0.82 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, which is a strong number but still well below their 1.239 prior-season rating, so this is a team performing under its own established baseline. The 0.315 jump versus last week is the real signal here, a sharp upward move against a roughly neutral schedule (-0.033), which tells me the market may still be pricing them off their slower start rather than their current form. With no key players docked and a 93-68 record, I'm buying this rise, and at 0.82 the rating implies they should be laying close to -1.5 on a neutral field, so any shorter number is value. |
| 5 | Δ ▲1 | 91-71 | +0.7 | — | San Diego sits 5th with a 0.736 runs-neutral rating, up a sharp 0.467 from last week, yet still below its 0.854 prior-season mark despite a 91-71 record. That gap says the market is pricing them closer to their peak than their current form, so I'm a cautious seller at anything near a full run of lay value. With no injuries docked and a near-neutral schedule (-0.015), this rating is clean, meaning the number you see is the number you get. |
| 6 | Δ ▼1 | 98-64 | +0.7 | — | Tampa Bay grades as the sixth-best team in baseball at 0.715 runs above average on a neutral field, and that number is climbing fast, up 0.356 in a week. With a 98-64 record and a plus-0.12 margin against the market, the books have been slow to fully price this club, so I'm buying the Rays as a live overlay. The rating already bakes in a zero injury dock with no key players listed unavailable, meaning there's no hidden downside baked into that number. |
| 7 | Δ ▲2 | 94-68 | +0.5 | — | Atlanta grades as a legit top-10 club at +0.468 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, and the rating has surged 0.346 in the past week, so this is a clear buy on a team the market still discounts at -0.17 against the number. The soft 0.08 strength of schedule is worth flagging, but with no injuries docked and a 94-win baseline, the profile holds up. Lay the runs with Atlanta while the market lags this move. |
| 8 | Δ ▲2 | 87-75 | +0.4 | — | Boston sits at 8th with a plus-0.444 run rating on a neutral field, but the real story is the 0.341 jump versus last week, a sharp upward move that says the market may still be lagging this team. The 87-75 record undersells them given a near-neutral schedule (-0.007) and a prior-season rating of 0.921, so this looks like a buy-low spot. With a -0.14 vs-market gap, they're being priced slightly worse than their rating implies, and with no key players docked, there's no hidden injury discount to fear. |
| 9 | Δ ▲3 | 76-86 | +0.4 | — | Detroit grades out at 0.41 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, which slots them 9th, but that number has climbed 0.505 in a week and comes against a soft schedule (-0.09), so I'm treating this as a sell-high rather than a buy. Their 76-86 record and 0.39 cover rate say the market has already been beating them, and a team with a prior-season rating of -0.243 making this kind of jump is exactly the profile that gets overpriced in the coming week's lines. |
| 10 | Δ ▼3 | 84-78 | +0.4 | — | Chicago is a legitimate top-10 club by my numbers, rated 0.402 runs better than average on a neutral field, and that rating is climbing fast — up 0.211 in a week. The market is still catching up, as their 0.63 cover rate shows they've been consistently undervalued, and the weak -0.07 strength of schedule means that rating is earned rather than schedule-inflated. Buy the White Sox: a 0.402 neutral-field rating implies roughly a -0.4 run adjustment before home edge, which is a thinner number than the public likely prices them at. |
| 11 | Δ ▲2 | 74-88 | +0.3 | — | The Mets grade out at 0.338 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, a modest No. 11 rating that sits well below where the market prices them, given their 74-88 record and a prior-season rating of -0.186. The real story is the 0.455 jump versus last week, the kind of move that tells you the underlying numbers are finally catching up to a roster that was better than its win-loss mark suggested. With no key players docked and a soft 0.095 strength of schedule, I'm buying this rating as legitimate and would look to back New York early before the market's 0.32 vs-market gap closes. |
| 12 | Δ ▼4 | 88-74 | +0.3 | — | Philadelphia sits at 12th with a rating of 0.292 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, and that number is climbing fast, up 0.108 in a week against a schedule rated 0.085. The market has them at -0.7 versus my number, so there's a small edge on the Phillies if you're buying this upward trend. With no key players docked and an 88-74 record, this is a quiet buy-low before the rating catches up to the prior-season 0.871 baseline. |
| 13 | Δ ▲4 | 82-80 | +0.2 | — | Pittsburgh sits at 13th with a plus-0.227 run rating on a neutral field, up a massive 0.468 from last week, and their plus-0.17 mark versus the market says the books have been slow to price this surge. That rating already bakes in zero injury dock, so this is a healthy club whose 82-80 record undersells the current form. Buy Pittsburgh now before the number catches up to a team playing nearly a quarter-run better than average. |
| 14 | Δ ▼3 | 86-76 | +0.2 | — | Arizona sits at 14th with a +0.192 runs-neutral rating, up a hefty 0.154 from last week, and they've been a quarter-run better than the market priced them all year. That prior-season rating of 0.349 says this club has real underlying quality, and the 86-76 record with a soft 0.035 strength of schedule suggests the market may still be undervaluing them. Buy low on the Diamondbacks while the rating is climbing and the number hasn't fully caught up. |
| 15 | Δ ▼1 | 85-77 | +0.2 | — | Cleveland sits at 15th with a rating of 0.171 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, and that number is climbing fast, up 0.375 from last week. The 85-77 record and -0.09 vs. market mark suggest the public has been slightly overvaluing them all year, but with a soft -0.1 strength of schedule and zero injury dock, this is a quiet buy-low on a team the market hasn't fully caught up to. |
| 16 | Δ ▲3 | 79-82 | +0.1 | — | Baltimore sits at 16th with a rating of just 0.123 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, but the arrow is pointing up sharply after a 0.583 jump versus last week. That surge comes against a nearly neutral schedule (0.011) and with a prior-season rating of -0.077, so the market's modest 0.15 edge over the number suggests this team is still being priced closer to its mediocre 79-82 record than its current form. With no injuries docked and no key absences, I'm a buyer on Baltimore as an underrated club whose true talent is climbing faster than the spread reflects. |
| 17 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | +0.1 | — | Miami sits at a modest 0.092 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, but the 0.332 jump in rating versus last week is the real story here — this club is trending hard off a -0.757 prior-season rating. At 80-82 with a +0.4 mark against the market, the books have been shading them slightly, meaning the recent surge hasn't fully been priced in yet. Buy-low window may be closing on the Marlins. |
| 18 | Δ ▼3 | 77-85 | -0.0 | — | Washington sits at 18th with a neutral-field rating of -0.006, essentially a league-average club, but the 0.229 jump versus last week is the real signal here. Their 77-85 record undersells them given a tough .099 strength of schedule, and the market has already caught on with a 0.71 cover rate, so the value is thinning. With no injuries docked and a prior-season rating of -1.746 showing how far they've climbed, I'd treat them as a modest buy rather than a fade. |
| 19 | Δ ▲2 | 81-81 | -0.1 | — | Houston sits at 19th with a -0.149 rating, essentially a coin-flip team on a neutral field, and that 81-81 record confirms it. The 0.562 jump from last week is the real signal here: they're trending up hard, yet the market still prices them 0.26 runs worse than this rating, so there's a modest buy-low window if the surge is legit. The catch is a -0.253 strength of schedule, meaning that recent run came against soft competition, so I'd want confirmation before treating this as a genuine breakout rather than a schedule mirage. |
| 20 | Δ ▼2 | 79-83 | -0.2 | — | Toronto sits at 20th with a -0.194 runs-neutral rating, meaning they're essentially a replacement-level club right now, and the 0.217 jump from last week is a nice trend but hardly enough to move the needle. The -0.31 vs-market gap says the public is pricing them slightly better than the numbers justify, so I'm selling Toronto as a small favorite and treating them as a fade when the line asks them to lay runs. The 0.736 prior-season rating is the only real argument for a buy-low, but until the underlying profile catches up, this is a below-average team masquerading as a neutral one. |
| 21 | Δ ▼1 | 77-85 | -0.3 | — | St. Louis sits at 21st with a -0.284 runs-neutral rating, meaning they're roughly a quarter-run worse than an average team on a neutral field, and that modest number explains a 77-85 record. The arrow is pointing up slightly, with a +0.19 rating change versus last week against a strength of schedule of 0.129, and a prior-season rating of -1.046 shows this is real improvement rather than noise. At +0.2 versus the market, the books are pricing them slightly better than my number, so I'd sell St. Louis as a small favorite but treat them as live getting a run-plus. |
| 22 | Δ ▲2 | 77-85 | -0.5 | — | Minnesota sits at 22nd with a -0.455 runs-neutral rating, still below average but trending hard in the right direction with a +0.462 jump versus last week. The profile is a clear buy-low: they've climbed from a -0.869 prior-season rating, are priced at just -0.15 against the market, and face a near-neutral schedule (-0.007), so the number may be lagging the improvement. At 77-85 with no material injuries docked, this is a team the market is slow to respect, and the rating gap versus their record suggests modest value on the right side. |
| 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 — that's a bottom-third club, and the 65-97 record confirms it. The encouraging signal is the +0.705 rating jump versus last week, the biggest mover you'll find, so this is a team trending up off a low base rather than one collapsing. At 0.53 against the market they've been marginally profitable for bettors, which tells me the public has been slow to price in that recent improvement — a modest buy on the number, not on the roster. |
| 24 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | -0.5 | — | Texas sits at 24th with a -0.534 run rating on a neutral field, a sub-.500 club at 80-82 that grades out slightly worse than the market's -0.56 vs. the number, so there's no real edge here. The encouraging sign is the +0.279 rating jump versus last week against a soft -0.195 schedule, but with no key absences docked and a prior-season rating of 0.424 that this year's team hasn't come close to matching, I'm treating this as a sell-high on any short-term bump rather than a buy. |
| 25 | Δ ▼3 | 69-93 | -0.8 | — | Kansas City sits at 25th with a rating of -0.778 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, and that number has slipped another -0.012 this week against a schedule graded at -0.014, so there's no schedule-driven excuse here. The 69-93 record confirms this is a genuinely weak club, and the -0.1 vs-market gap says the number is already shaded slightly against them, so I'm not hunting for value on the Royals. This is a sell, not a buy. |
| 26 | Δ ▼1 | 62-100 | -0.9 | — | The Angels sit 26th with a -0.871 runs-neutral rating, meaning they'd be roughly +0.9 underdogs to an average team on a neutral field, and their 62-100 record confirms this is a genuinely bad club. There's a small silver lining: they're up 0.139 runs from last week and their prior-season rating was even worse at -1.761, so the arrow is pointing slightly up. The market edge is real but thin at +0.08 versus the number, so I'd treat them as a mild buy-low on the rating trend rather than a team worth backing outright. |
| 27 | Δ – | 76-86 | -0.9 | — | Seattle sits 27th with a -0.882 runs-neutral rating, meaning they're nearly a full run worse than an average team on a neutral field, and their 76-86 record backs that up. The one encouraging signal is a +0.509 ratings jump versus last week, but that's a small move on a team that graded at +0.792 prior season, so the market's -1.3 vs-market mark suggests the public is still pricing them closer to last year's version than this year's. I'd treat Seattle as a sell on any short number until that rating climbs out of the bottom tier. |
| 28 | Δ ▲1 | 75-87 | -1.0 | — | Cincinnati sits at 28th with a -1.033 runs-neutral rating, so this is a below-average club that the market has actually been shading slightly toward, given the -0.35 vs-market gap. The encouraging part is the 0.517 rating jump in a week against a schedule that graded out at 0.208, suggesting the recent form is real rather than a soft spot. At 75-87 with a prior-season rating of just 0.25, I'm treating this as a mild buy-low on the number rather than a team ready to climb out of the bottom tier. |
| 29 | Δ ▼1 | 58-104 | -1.3 | — | Colorado sits at minus-1.32 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, a 1.08-run jump from last year's minus-2.40, and the rating climbed another 0.186 this week despite a 58-104 record. That improvement came against a plus-0.163 strength of schedule, so this is a legitimate buy-low signal, not a mirage. With no players docked for injury and a 0.43 cover rate against the market, the public is still pricing them near last year's disaster, which is where the value lives. |
| 30 | Δ – | 64-98 | -2.0 | — | Oakland is dead last at -2.034 runs versus an average neutral-field team, and a 64-98 record confirms this rating isn't noise. The only real positive is a 0.464 run jump from last week, but that's a blip on a team that grades 0.69 runs worse than the market prices them, making them a clear sell whenever the number looks competitive. |
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 →