MLB Power Rankings — Week 27, 2026
As of 2026-09-27
latest snapshot
| # | Team | Rec | Rating | Inj | Earl's Take |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Δ – | 103-59 | +1.4 | — | Milwaukee sits at No. 1 with a 1.399 run rating on a neutral field, up a hefty 0.259 from last week, so this is a team peaking at the right time rather than coasting on its 103-59 record. The market is still a half-step behind at 0.31 runs versus the model, which makes MIL a modest buy in spots where the number hasn't fully caught up to the rating. With no key players unavailable and a neutral schedule rating of -0.002, there's no reason to discount this number. |
| 2 | Δ – | 89-73 | +1.1 | — | The Cubs grade out at 1.15 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, good for second in the league, and their rating jumped 0.227 this week with no key players unavailable. At 89-73 with a soft 0.034 strength of schedule, that rating is doing real work, but the 0.48 vs-market mark says the betting public has already priced most of it in, so there's no free edge here. Treat them as fairly rated rather than a buy, and only back them when the matchup-driven line lands a half-run or more above their rating edge. |
| 3 | Δ – | 100-62 | +1.1 | — | The Dodgers rate at 1.062 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, up a huge 0.242 from last week, and with no key players unavailable the rating carries no injury dock. That number sits well below their 1.404 prior-season rating, so this is a buy-low window on a 100-win team whose true quality likely exceeds the current mark. The -0.86 vs-market gap means the market has priced them even higher than this rating suggests, so the value is in the rating catching up rather than betting them as big favorites. |
| 4 | Δ – | 93-68 | +0.8 | — | The Yankees sit at 4th with a +0.82 runs-neutral rating, up a sharp 0.315 from last week, though still well below their 1.24 prior-season mark. That gap says the market may be pricing them closer to last year's elite form than this year's actual level, so they're a mild sell at current spreads rather than a buy. With no injury dock and a near-neutral schedule (-0.033), the rating is clean and trustworthy, meaning their true edge is roughly 0.8 runs over an average team, not the premium their 93-68 record implies. |
| 5 | Δ ▲1 | 91-71 | +0.7 | — | San Diego sits 5th with a 0.736 runs-neutral rating, up a hefty 0.467 from last week, and their 91-71 record came against a schedule essentially neutral (-0.015), so this is a legitimately strong team rather than a soft-record pretender. The rating is slightly below last year's 0.855, which makes them a mild buy-low on the market at 0.5 versus the number given the sharp upward trend and no docked injury points. At roughly three-quarters of a run better than average, they should be laying around -1.0 to -1.2 on a neutral field against an average opponent, so check that the market isn't pricing them closer to a coin flip. |
| 6 | Δ ▼1 | 98-64 | +0.7 | — | Tampa Bay grades out at +0.715 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, sixth in the league, and that rating has surged 0.336 in a week on a schedule that's been essentially neutral (-0.033). The +0.12 vs-market mark says the market still hasn't fully caught up to this number, so I'm buying the Rays as a live overlay against typical spreads. With a 98-64 record, no injury dock, and no key absences, the underlying profile supports the rating rather than inflating it. |
| 7 | Δ ▲2 | 94-68 | +0.5 | — | Atlanta grades out at 0.468 runs better than an average team on a neutral field, ranking 7th, and the rating is climbing fast with a +0.346 jump versus last week. That surge is real but the market hasn't fully bought in, since the -0.16 gap to the number means you're still getting Atlanta cheaper than a typical top-seven spread would demand. With no key players docked and a manageable 0.08 strength of schedule, this is a buy on the Braves while the price lags the underlying form. |
| 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 in a single week — that's a sharp move upward, and the market hasn't caught up, pricing them 0.14 runs worse than this rating implies. The 87-75 record and a prior-season rating of 0.922 suggest this roster has real underlying quality, so I'm buying the recent surge rather than fading it, especially with no key players unavailable and a schedule that's been essentially neutral. At this rating they'd be a slight road favorite against an average team, and the gap versus the market makes them a live value play right now. |
| 9 | Δ ▲3 | 76-86 | +0.4 | — | Detroit sits at a 0.41 run rating (9th) but that's a huge jump from a -0.243 prior-season mark, a +0.505 weekly swing that says the market is still catching up. The 76-86 record undersells this team given the soft -0.09 schedule and a +0.39 vs-market edge, so I'm buying Detroit as an underrated side before the number fully adjusts. With no key players docked, the rating is clean, and a 0.41 edge means they should be favored by roughly that margin at neutral — a real value against typical spreads. |
| 10 | Δ ▼3 | 84-78 | +0.4 | — | CWS sits at 10th with a +0.402 runs-neutral rating, up 0.211 in a week, and the +0.63 vs-market mark says the number is still chasing this team rather than the other way around. The schedule has been soft (-0.07), so the 84-78 record slightly undersells the underlying form, but the leap from a -0.558 prior-season rating means this is a real buy, not just noise. With no key players unavailable, I'd back them laying anything up to about a half-run on a neutral field. |
| 11 | Δ ▲2 | 74-88 | +0.3 | — | The Mets rate at 0.338 runs better than average on a neutral field, up a notable 0.455 versus last week, and that rating already reflects no dock for unavailable key players since none are listed. Their prior-season rating of -0.185 against a 74-88 record shows real year-over-year improvement, but the vs_market mark of 0.32 suggests the market is still pricing them closer to average than this rating implies, making them a modest buy at current spreads. |
| 12 | Δ ▼4 | 88-74 | +0.3 | — | Philadelphia sits at a 0.292 rating (12th), a solid but unspectacular number that's trending up 0.108 week-over-week, though the 0.871 prior-season mark suggests the market may still be pricing them closer to last year's form than this year's actual level. The vs_market figure of -0.7 says the number is roughly a field-goal underdog against a typical spread, so there's mild value on the buy side given the positive rating momentum and a manageable 0.085 strength of schedule. No key players are docked, so this rating is clean and the 88-74 record backs up a team that's quietly better than its rank implies. |
| 13 | Δ ▲4 | 82-80 | +0.2 | — | Pittsburgh sits at 13th with a +0.227 runs-neutral rating, up a hefty 0.468 from last week, and its +0.17 vs-market mark says the books still price this club below where the model does. The schedule has been soft (0.106), so some of that jump is schedule-aided, but the market gap is the real edge — this is a quiet buy, not an overrated fade. |
| 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 their 86-76 record against a soft 0.035 strength of schedule suggests the underlying number is doing real work here. The market's +0.25 edge versus their rating says they're still being priced slightly short of what the model sees, so this is a quiet buy on a team trending the right direction. With no key players docked and a 0.35 prior-season rating behind them, the current mark looks like legitimate improvement rather than noise. |
| 15 | Δ ▼1 | 85-77 | +0.2 | — | Cleveland sits at a modest 0.171 runs better than average on a neutral field, ranked 15th, and the 0.375 weekly jump is a real upward signal even against a slightly soft schedule (-0.1). At 85-77 with a prior-season rating of 0.414, this looks like a mild buy-low rather than a contender, and the vs_market gap of -0.09 says the number is already shading a touch rich relative to the rating. No key absences are docked, so the rating is clean and the case rests entirely on that improving trend. |
| 16 | Δ ▲3 | 79-82 | +0.1 | — | Baltimore sits at 16th with a +0.123 runs-neutral rating, and the +0.583 jump versus last week is the real story here — this is a team trending up fast off a -0.076 prior-season baseline. The +0.15 vs-market edge says the number is still lagging the underlying form, so I'm buying the Orioles as a modest live underdog rather than laying anything with them. With no key players unavailable and a near-neutral schedule, there's no dock to discount that rating. |
| 17 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | +0.1 | — | Miami sits at a plus-0.092 runs rating, essentially a neutral-field coin flip at 17th, but the plus-0.332 weekly jump is the real story and marks them as one of the fastest risers in the league. The vs_market mark of plus-0.4 says the market is still pricing them roughly 0.3 runs below this rating, so there's a live buy signal here before the number catches up. With no key players docked and an 80-82 record that undersells the current form, this is a team to back now rather than after the market adjusts. |
| 18 | Δ ▼3 | 77-85 | -0.0 | — | WSH sits at 18th with a neutral-field rating of -0.006, essentially a league-average team, but the +0.229 jump versus last week is the real signal here. The schedule strength of 0.099 has inflated that climb, so I'm not buying the surge outright, yet the +0.71 vs-market mark says the betting public is still undervaluing them relative to where this rating lands. At 77-85 with no key absences docked, this is a modest buy-low on the number, not a team to back at a typical spread premium. |
| 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 the market still prices 0.26 runs better than this number, so there's a small but real sell signal against the public's view of them. The 0.562 rating jump versus last week is the loudest data point here, but it comes against a soft -0.253 strength of schedule, so I'd treat the surge as schedule-inflated rather than a genuine breakout. No key players are docked from this rating, meaning the number is clean and the modest market gap is the only edge worth chasing. |
| 20 | Δ ▼2 | 79-83 | -0.2 | — | Toronto sits at 20th with a -0.194 runs-neutral rating, meaning they're roughly a quarter-run worse than an average team on a neutral field, and their -0.31 vs-market mark says the betting public has been slightly overvaluing them all year. The 0.217 weekly jump is the real story here — that's a meaningful move toward respectability, but it's still a long way from the 0.736 prior-season rating, so this looks like a team the market is correcting rather than a genuine buy. With no key players unavailable and a near-neutral schedule (0.045), I'd treat them as a slight sell at current prices until the rating closes more of that gap. |
| 21 | Δ ▼1 | 77-85 | -0.3 | — | St. Louis sits at 21st with a -0.284 runs-neutral rating, a modest 0.19 jump from last week but still a middling profile against a 0.129 strength of schedule. The +0.2 vs-market mark suggests the market is shading them slightly better than the raw rating, yet the -1.045 prior-season rating shows how far this club has fallen. With no key absences docked and a 77-85 record, this is a hold, not a buy. |
| 22 | Δ ▲2 | 77-85 | -0.5 | — | Minnesota sits at -0.455 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, ranking 22nd, but the rating has jumped 0.462 in a week and is up from a -0.868 prior-season mark, so this is a genuine buy-low on a club the market is still pricing 0.15 runs worse than the number. A 77-85 record against a schedule that graded essentially neutral (-0.007) says the underlying profile is better than the standings suggest. No key players are docked in this rating, so the number is clean and the recent trend is the real signal here. |
| 23 | Δ ▲3 | 65-97 | -0.5 | — | San Francisco sits at -0.505 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, ranking 23rd, which is roughly a half-run underdog before any matchup adjustment. The rating jumped 0.705 versus last week, so this is a clear buy-low signal on a 65-97 team whose underlying number is trending up. With a 0.53 mark against the market and no docked injury points, the profile reads slightly underrated relative to how the public likely prices a last-place club. |
| 24 | Δ ▼1 | 80-82 | -0.5 | — | Texas grades out at -0.534 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, which slots them 24th and well below the market's implied number, so the -0.56 vs-market gap says the public is still pricing this team on reputation rather than production. The 0.279 weekly uptick is a mild positive, but it comes against a -0.195 strength of schedule, so I'm not buying it as a real turn. At 80-82 with a 0.409 prior-season rating, this is a sell on any spread that asks them to be a neutral-field favorite. |
| 25 | Δ ▼3 | 69-93 | -0.8 | — | Kansas City sits at -0.778 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, ranked 25th, which is a real step down from last year's +0.449 prior-season rating and confirms this is a rebuilding club, not a contender. The market is already pricing them 0.1 runs worse than my number, so there's no edge in backing them at current spreads, and with a near-neutral schedule (-0.014) there's no soft landing to exploit. This is a sell on any KC hype until the rating stabilizes, and a fade candidate when they're catching inflated lines as an underdog. |
| 26 | Δ ▼1 | 62-100 | -0.9 | — | The Angels rate at -0.871 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, 26th in the league, though that's a meaningful 0.89-run jump from last year's -1.76 prior rating and a modest 0.139 gain week over week. A -0.153 strength of schedule means even that weak rating was earned against softer-than-average competition, so don't read too much into the improvement. Their +0.08 vs market makes them a slight sell at current prices, since the market is already shading them a touch better than this number justifies. |
| 27 | Δ – | 76-86 | -0.9 | — | Seattle grades out at -0.882 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, 27th in the league, and the 0.509 weekly jump is a dead-cat bounce off a brutal baseline rather than a real turnaround. The -1.3 vs market says the number is still shaded too favorably for a 76-86 club, so this is a sell until the rating catches down to the spread. With no key players unavailable and a soft -0.159 schedule, the record flatters them more than the underlying number does. |
| 28 | Δ ▲1 | 75-87 | -1.0 | — | Cincinnati's -1.033 runs-neutral rating ranks 28th and sits a full run below average, yet the model shows a 0.517 weekly jump and a prior-season rating of 0.251, so this is a roster trending up rather than a fixed doormat. The vs_market line of -0.35 says the number has already moved toward the Reds, so the buy window is closing and I'd only back them where the price still lags the rating. With no key players unavailable and a 75-87 record, treat this as an underrated club on the rise, not a sell. |
| 29 | Δ ▼1 | 58-104 | -1.3 | — | Colorado's -1.32 runs-neutral rating ranks 29th, though the 0.186 weekly climb and a prior-season mark of -2.402 show real improvement off a dreadful baseline. The 58-104 record with a 0.43 vs-market rate means the market has already priced this team correctly, so there's no edge fading or backing them at typical spreads. This is a hold, not a buy, until the rating closes the gap on a schedule that graded out at 0.163. |
| 30 | Δ – | 64-98 | -2.0 | — | Oakland is dead last at -2.034 runs versus an average team on a neutral field, and the 64-98 record backs that up. The one encouraging number is the +0.464 rating jump from last week, though that's noise on a team this bad. The market has already priced them 0.69 runs worse than this rating, so there's no value in selling low here. |
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 →