Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a Tuesday interview that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) “doesn’t understand” the nuclear threat that Iran poses.
“I like Marjorie, but to be honest with you, she doesn’t understand the threat, in my view,” Graham said in an interview with Fox News’s John Roberts.
“If you don’t understand that Iran, a religious theocracy, religious Nazis would use a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, you don’t listen to what they say,” Graham continued. “They’re a threat to us. They’re a threat to the State of Israel. It is not in the world’s interest to give this religious fanatic a nuclear weapon.”
Graham’s remarks come in response to Greene’s opposition to any potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.
He was asked to respond to her suggestion that “Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.”
“Wishing for murder of innocent people is disgusting. We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them,” she continued, in a post on X.
Paychex, Inc. (NASDAQ:PAYX) is one of the best 52-week high stocks to buy, according to analysts. On June 10, Morgan Stanley reiterated an ‘Equal Weight’ on the stock and maintained a $150 price target. The firm’s stance is in response to the acquisition of PayCor for $4.1 billion as it seeks to enhance its AI-enabled technology and service capabilities.
Morgan Stanley Affirms ‘Equal Weight’ on Paychex on PayCor Integration
According to Morgan Stanley, the acquisition will likely trigger a 5% and 3% decrease in forecasted diluted earnings per share for fiscal 2026 and 2027. Despite the downward adjustment, the firm has reiterated a $150 price target, attributing it to higher earnings multiple of 27 times up from 25 times.
Morgan Stanley is confident of the sustained strength of the demand and employment landscape as the PayCor acquisition is poised to increase Paychex’s total addressable market. The analysts expect the integration to contribute positively to the company’s business by broadening service offerings and reaching new customer segments.
The strategic acquisition is also expected to bolster Paychex’s position in the market by tapping PayCor’s existing customer base and technology solutions. The acquisition is also part of a broader strategy that seeks to capture more market share and drive growth.
Paychex, Inc. (NASDAQ:PAYX) provides integrated human capital management solutions (HCM) for payroll, benefits, human resources (HR), and insurance services for small to medium-sized businesses. It offers payroll processing, tax administration, employee payment, and regulatory compliance services.
While we acknowledge the potential of PAYX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you’re looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
In a purported attempt to limit Israel’s ability to wage cyberwarfare, Iran has begun throttling its civilians’ access to the internet and plans to disconnect entirely from the global internet by Tuesday night.
Fateme Mohajerani, a government spokesperson, said during a recent television broadcast that the speed reduction was “temporary, targeted, and controlled, aimed at countering cyberattacks,” according to machine translation.
The announcements come amidst the escalating war between Iran and Israel, which broke out after Israel attacked the country on June 12th, and a rise in reported internet outages. Civilians have claimed that they’ve been unable to access basic but critical telecommunications services, such as messaging apps, maps, and sometimes the internet itself. Cloudflare reported that two major Iranian cellular carriers effectively went offline on Tuesday, and The New York Times reports that even VPNs, which Iranians frequently use to access banned sites like Facebook and Instagram, have become increasingly harder to access.
Furthermore, the Iranian government is urging citizens to delete WhatsApp – one of the country’s most popular messaging platforms – claiming without any evidence that the Meta-owned app has been weaponized by Israel to spy on its users. (WhatsApp vehemently denied those claims in a statement to the Associated Press.) Other reports indicate that Telegram, another messaging app popular in Iran, has been blocked as well.
Israel’s role in the cyber outages has not been officially confirmed, but independent analysts at NetBlocks noticed a significant reduction of internet traffic originating from Iran on Tuesday, starting at 5:30 PM local time. According to Tasnim, a news network affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iranians will still have access to the country’s state-operated national internet service, though two Iranian officials told the Times that the internal bandwidth could be reduced by up to 80 percent.
Israel has experienced a 700 percent increase in cyberattacks since June 12th, according to the cybersecurity firm Radware, which attributes this to Iran’s own sophisticated state-sponsored hacking operations. National security experts also warn that American companies may experience “spillover” from continued cyberwarfare, and that if the United States intervenes in the military conflict, Iranian hackers could begin attacking critical US infrastructure in retaliation.
SAN FRANCISCO — Rafael Devers strolled into the clubhouse side-by-side with home run king Barry Bonds, a fellow left-handed slugger who San Francisco‘s new big hitter has long admired from afar.
“I think just looking at him my game has already improved a lot,” Devers joked as he was formally introduced by the Giants on Tuesday, when he was set to be designated hitter batting third in the series opener against the Cleveland Guardians.
Devers is determined to leave his own lasting mark on the franchise in what is a much-needed fresh start for him and a monumental mid-season acquisition for Buster Posey and San Francisco’s front office.
And whatever went wrong in Boston, Devers is done discussing any issues he had with the Red Sox and eager to move forward across the country with the Giants.
“That’s in the past now, I’m looking ahead and focusing on what I have here being a San Francisco Giant,” Devers said. “I’m eager to go out there and play and see what I can do.”
With a bright smile to match his bright new No. 16 jersey, Devers insisted he will play any position — “I’m here to play wherever they want me to play” — and do whatever manager Bob Melvin and his staff ask.
“I really like his answers by the way,” said Posey, in his first year as president of baseball operations.
The Giants will take on a mega contract after Devers signed a new $331 million, 11-year deal in January 2023. He joins several other stars here with long-term contracts — shortstop Willy Adames has a seven-year, $182 million deal and third baseman Matt Chapman at $151 million over six years through 2030 — as Posey builds a roster he expects will compete for another World Series championship, like the ones the Giants won with him as their star catcher in 2010, ’12 and ’14.
San Francisco last made the playoffs in 2021, when it won a franchise-record 107 games and edged the rival Dodgers for the NL West title on the final day.
“I think this organization has talent, they have won championships. I am here to play, to win and to win a championship,” Devers said through an interpreter.
Posey thanked ownership for its willingness to go for it and traded for Devers to boost a club that has lacked power and struggled to score runs for extended stretches this year. The trade announced Sunday came together in the past few weeks after countless hours and conversations.
“I think the persistence really paid off,” chairman Greg Johnson said.
While the Giants will gradually get Devers up to speed playing the field again since he has strictly been a DH this year, they know he has plenty of mentors eager to help. Devers was scheduled to do some fielding work at first base, the very position he didn’t want to play after losing his spot at third when the Red Sox signed Alex Bregman to a $120 million, three-year contract in February to be their third baseman — the spot where Devers made 130 starts last year.
“When you have a guy like Barry Bonds around, arguably the greatest hitter of all-time, it’s an added benefit for sure,” Posey said.
It will only be a matter of days before Devers’ first reunion with the Red Sox, who visit Oracle Park for a weekend series.
He was batting .271 with 14 home runs and 57 RBIs over 72 games as Boston’s primary DH. When asked what the differences will be as he begins anew, Devers noted: “It’s the same baseball. I’m here to give my 100%.”
The 28-year-old Devers hadn’t been thrilled with the idea of playing first base in Boston but thanked the people who cheered him, calling them “great fans who supported me my whole time there.”
After all the fanfare of his introduction and receiving his jersey in front of most of his teammates, who made time to be at his news conference before doing their pregame routines, Devers got to work.
“The Giants brought me here for a reason and I will give 100%,” he said. “I’m now happy to be part of the team.”
Kelsea Ballerini’s healthy lifestyle doesn’t come with any baggage.
The “Cowboys Cry Too” singer shared how she prioritizes her wellness on and off the road.
“It’s different depending on what I’m doing,” Kelsea, who wrapped her latest tour in April, told E! News in an exclusive interview. “When I was on tour, I was much more regimented. Sleep was my number one. Everything came second to that, because if I didn’t get enough sleep, I was not a person the next day.”
And by creating clever habits, she never has to ask herself how do I do this.
“I wasn’t too intense on my body, because I was moving every night on stage for 90 minutes,” the 31-year-old, who was recently named Celsius’ newest brand ambassador, admitted. “So I would put on my little ankle weights, crack my Celsius, and I would walk the arena. I developed this little habit of going up to the top seat every night and watching the trucks load the stage in.”
The opening of HS2 will be delayed beyond the target date of 2033, the BBC understands.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander is expected to tell Parliament on Wednesday that there is “no reasonable way to deliver” the railway line on schedule and within budget – but is not expected to say how long the delay will be.
She is set to outline the findings of two reviews into HS2, one of which a “litany of failure” has been blamed for ballooning costs.
It is the latest setback for the high-speed rail project, which has been scaled back and delayed repeatedly.
Alexander is expected to say that Conservative governments presided over the cost of HS2 rising by £37bn between 2012, when the line was first approved, and the general election last year.
Under the original plans, HS2 was intended to create high-speed rail links between London and major cities in the Midlands and North of England.
It was designed to cut journey times and expand capacity on the railways, but has faced myriad challenges and soaring costs.
It has already been pared down to a high-speed link between Birmingham and London, with the Birmingham to Manchester leg cancelled in 2023 due to costs getting “totally out of control”, the then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said.
That was two years after a planned eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds was also axed.
Alexander is to release the two reports into HS2 in a bid to “draw a line in the sand” and mark a government reset in how major infrastructure is delivered.
One report will detail the findings of a review conducted by the former chief executive of Crossrail, James Stewart, which was commissioned last year to “investigate the oversight of major transport infrastructure projects”.
It is expected to set out what has gone wrong with the HS2 to date and what ministers can learn for future projects.
A second review by Mark Wild, the chief executive of HS2 who was put in place as part of efforts to get control of rising costs in October last year, will assess the construction of the project’s phase from London to Birmingham.
Last year, the Department for Transport said the remaining project cost was estimated at between £45bn and £54bn in 2019 prices – but HS2 management has estimated it could be as high as £57bn.
In 2010, it was estimated HS2 would cost £33bn and open in 2026.
Alexander is also expected to announce the appointment of Mike Brown, the former commissioner of Transport for London to become the new chair of HS2 Ltd.
A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy requiring identity documents to reflect an individual’s sex “at conception” to all transgender, nonbinary and intersex Americans who want to change the sex designation on their passports.
A previous ruling, handed down in April, had ordered the State Department to allow only six trans and nonbinary plaintiffs named in a federal lawsuit to obtain passports with sex designations matching their gender identity while the case proceeds. The lawsuit, filed in February in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues the administration’s policy “is motivated by impermissible animus.”
The plaintiffs’ legal team at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP asked the court in April to certify a class of people adversely affected by the passport policy and extend the preliminary injunction to those who are currently impacted or may be impacted in the future.
Judge Julia E. Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, granted that request on Tuesday. She wrote in her ruling that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs “face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity.”
In granting the initial preliminary injunction in April, Kobick wrote that the federal government had failed “to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest.”
The State Department suspended processing applications from Americans seeking to update their passports with a new gender marker in January, shortly after President Trump signed an executive order proclaiming the U.S. recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and that those sexes “are not changeable.”
The order, which Trump signed during his first hours back in office, directs the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management to require government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas and Global Entry cards, to reflect an individual’s sex at birth over their gender identity. The State Department previously allowed U.S. passport holders to self-select their sex designations, including an “unspecified” gender marker denoted by the letter X.
Kobick wrote in her ruling on Tuesday that passports are used not just for international travel but also for more common and mundane tasks such as filling out employment paperwork, opening a bank account or renting a car.
“Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport,” Kobick wrote, making them more vulnerable to discrimination, harassment and violence and increasing their experiences of anxiety and psychological distress.
In a 2022 survey, 22 percent of transgender adults said they were verbally harassed, assaulted, asked to leave an establishment or denied services after they presented an identity document with a name or gender that did not match their gender presentation.
In a statement, Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said Tuesday’s ruling “acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact” of the Trump administration’s policy.
“This decision is a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “But it’s also a historic win in the fight against this administration’s efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve.”
Even with the ability to take excellent photos with our phones and instantly share them across the world, there’s something magical about the old-school instant camera. With just a click of a button, you can capture a moment in a photo that you can see and touch almost immediately. Images captured by an instant camera aren’t as pristine or perfect as those produced by modern digital cameras, but their soft images and imperfections are often a big part of the allure.
Yet not all instant cameras are the same, and some of them are better suited for different needs and budgets. That’s why we tested some of the most popular instant cameras on the market from brands like Fujifilm, Polaroid, Leica, Canon, and Kodak.
All the models featured in our instant camera buying guide are enjoyable to use, but each offers a distinct set of features at a different price point. As a result, some are more appropriate for a child or budding photographer, while others are more advanced and provide added creative control (for a price). When it comes down to it, though, we consider print quality, ease of use, and affordability to be the hallmarks of a quality shooter. That’s why we picked Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 as the best instant camera for most people, as it ticks all three boxes wonderfully.
What I’m looking for
Typically, I try to spend at least a couple of weeks — if not months — testing each camera to get an idea of what it would be like to actually own one. I’ll use them to capture photos of loved ones while hanging out, or subjects and scenes I stumble across as I’m exploring Los Angeles and its many beaches. I shoot indoors and outside, with and without the flash, allowing me to compare how each camera performs in both bright and low-light environments.I also ask friends and family — both young and old — for their input on image quality, and I have them take photos with the instant camera to get their thoughts on usability. If the camera comes with extra features, such as filters or support for a companion app, I’ll make sure to put them to the test in real-life situations. I note how easy it is to pull up and navigate the app, apply the effects, and, of course, how the results look.
Instant cameras aren’t known for producing high-quality, sharp photos, and most of them struggle with low-light conditions. However, the photos should at least be clear and bright enough that the subject is discernible and the picture looks relatively true to life.
How easy is it to set the instant camera up and take photos with it? Ease of use is a big part of what makes instant cameras fun and accessible to people of all ages. You shouldn’t need a professional photography background just to enjoy an instant camera. Instant cameras aren’t known for producing high-quality, sharp photos, and most of them struggle with low-light conditions. However, the photos should at least be clear and bright enough that the subject is discernible and the picture looks relatively true to life.
Instant cameras come with different features at various price points. Generally, the more feature-rich cameras tend to be pricier, but do the extra capabilities justify the added cost? Some cameras, for example, pair with a companion app or feature a built-in selfie mirror, while others include the ability to print images from your phone. None of these are essential, though the added niceties may be worth it for some people.
Some instant cameras aren’t as well suited for some situations and / or people as others. For example, there are instant cameras that print old-fashioned Polaroid photos that aren’t very clear. They frustrate me, but retro lovers might find them charming. Other cameras come with advanced creative modes that let you edit photos and even print smartphone pictures, but a young child might find them hard to use.
Each instant camera requires a different kind of film, which means that the sticker price of the camera isn’t the true price. This is something you should take into account before making a purchase, as the cost of film can quickly add up. Depending on the brand, you may have to pay anywhere between 50 cents and $2 a shot.It’s also important to take into account that some film is easier to find. The Instax Mini 12, for example, uses credit card-size Instax Mini film that’s sold at most major retailers. Other types of film, including the film needed for Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Square Retro, are available on Amazon but aren’t sold by as many retailers.Finally, most instant camera brands sell films of varying quality in a range of styles. Some are decorated with colorful frames and patterns, while others are black and white. They also vary in shape and size, from small rectangular prints you can stick in your wallet to square-shaped ones. You can also buy wider prints, and some brands even sell film with an adhesive backing that allows you to use the resulting images as stickers.
If you’re looking for more creative control or features like filters, however, the Instax Mini Evo is our choice, one that boasts great image quality and allows you to choose which photos you’d like to print. Other instant cameras, like the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus and Kodak’s Mini Retro 3, also offer a variety of advanced creative modes for those who desire more.
Take a look at this list of our instant camera recommendations to find the best fit for you.
The best instant camera for most people
$80
The Good
Produces relatively true-to-life photos
Terrific ease of use
Very affordable
The Bad
Instax film can get pricey
Minimal creative control
Flash can be overpowering
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately)/ Film size: 2 x 3-inches /Weight: 306 grams / Charging method: AA batteries / Companion app: None / Other features: Built-in selfie mirror, film counter
If all you’re looking to do is just click a button and get a decent print for a reasonable price, we recommend Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12. It’s a basic instant camera that’s similar to our former pick, the Instax Mini 11, but with some minor updates. It still takes less than five minutes to start shooting, but the setup process is easier since all you need to do is twist the lens to either “on” or “off.” Such ease of use, combined with the camera’s thinner build, makes it particularly well suited for those new to photography and kids.
For an instant camera, Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 produces vivid, relatively true-to-life photos.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
For an instant camera, image quality is also better than most of the other cameras I tested, producing relatively true-to-life photos. Most of the cameras I tested struggled to capture low-light conditions well, and this one is no exception, but the built-in flash does help. Fujifilm claims the Mini 12 optimizes image quality in both dark and bright environments better than its predecessor, but I didn’t notice much of a difference. The flash — which you can’t disable — is also still overpowering in some instances, resulting in a few overexposed images. If anything, the photos actually seemed a little darker and less vivid than before.
However, at least the Instax Mini 12 captured my features and skin color more accurately when I used the included selfie feature — which is really just a small mirror mounted on the front of the camera.
Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12 features a new lens structure that’s fun and more intuitive to play with.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
You can also now zoom in a little easier thanks to a new lens structure, which you can twist to enter the Close-Up Mode in lieu of pressing a button. When in this mode, you can take advantage of the camera’s new “Parallax Correction” feature, which is supposed to result in a more aligned photo. The lens was fun to play with and reminded me of a traditional point-and-shoot, but actually using it to take quality photos takes some time to figure out. As with the Mini 11, it’s still somewhat tricky to center your subject in the frame using this mode, even with the updated lens. Thankfully, it became easier to properly align photos after a couple of attempts (as well as some composition guidance from the manual).
The Mini 12 also offers a number of other niceties. I appreciated the larger-than-average viewfinder and the fact that the camera comes with a small counter that displays the remaining number of shots, which is a feature many of the other instant cameras I tested lacked. It’s easy to lose track of how many photos you’ve taken, especially when out for drinks or while sightseeing on vacation. Yet given each print costs about $1, it’s important to be mindful of how many shots you’ve got left.
All in all, the Instax Mini 12 is a basic camera that caters to all ages and experience levels and gets the job done — and done relatively well. It doesn’t feature Bluetooth or pair with a companion app that allows you to edit photos (only scan them), and it also doesn’t offer advanced features like filters, lens options, or portrait modes. But if you’re looking for an instant camera that offers a great traditional analog experience, this is it.
Best premium instant camera
$199
The Good
Great use of dials and buttons
Lots of printing flexibility
Good battery life
The Bad
Internal storage is limited
Micro USB port is annoying
No viewfinder
Film type: Fujifilm Instax Mini film (sold separately)/ Film size: 2 x 3-inches /Weight: 285 grams / Charging method: USB-C (on newer models) / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
One of Fujifilm’s newest instant cameras, the Instax Mini Evo, was a favorite of my former colleague Becca Farcase — and it’s mine as well. A hybrid camera that bears a resemblance to Fujifilm’s more expensive Fujifilm X100 line of cameras, it looks good and boasts vintage dials and buttons so stylish that they even caught the attention of passersby as I walked around Los Angeles taking photos. I tested the black camera, but Fujifilm also sells a brown version and limited edition models in silver and gold.
It’s easy to balk at its $199 price tag, but this camera offers a level of flexibility that could save you money in the long run if you use it a lot. That’s because the Instax Mini Evo includes a full-color three-inch LCD screen that lets you preview and select which images you want to print, which can help you avoid wasting film on unwanted shots. The added flexibility gave me more room for creative experimentation, too, as I wasn’t worried about running out of film. I also loved using the Instax Mini Evo app to print photos from my smartphone. Plus, unlike the Instax Mini 12, the Evo now uses a USB-C port (though older black models still use the Micro USB port) for charging, so you don’t need to keep buying new batteries.
The Instax Mini Evo comes with a large LCD screen that doubles as a viewfinder and allows you to choose which photos to print.Image: Becca Farsace / The Verge
Unlike Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 12, the Mini Evo comes with a few extra features that can help you capture better photos. For example, you can actually turn off the flash on the Mini Evo and use the three-inch LCD screen as a viewfinder. You can also use the menu to adjust how bright you want the film to look when it’s printed out, which was helpful given neither the Evo nor the Mini 12 are particularly great at capturing dark environments.
Additionally, there are dials you can use to apply various lens options and filters, ranging from retro to monochrome shades, as well as a mirror lens, vignette, soft focus, and more. You can take app-based remote shots, too, which adds an extra element of photographic control that can help you take better selfie shots than the selfie mirror in the front.
Being able to adjust the brightness of the prints helped me capture night photos and a low-light immersive exhibit a little more clearly and realistically, which is a feature the Instax Mini 12 doesn’t offer.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Of course, it’s not a perfect device, and there are some downsides to consider outside the price. For instance, although you can add some filters and make a few edits using Fujifilm’s companion app, it just isn’t as feature-rich as some of the apps available for the other digital and hybrid instant cameras I tested. The Evo’s extensive menu system isn’t particularly easy to navigate, either, and it took me some time to figure out how to turn the flash on and off. Plus, if you rely on internal storage solely, you can only take 45 images before the device is full. Still, all of these are minor issues, and I was very happy overall with how portable the stylish camera is, as well as how easy it is to take good photos quickly.
Film type: Kodak Instant Print 3 x 3-inch cartridge (included) / Film size: 3 x 3-inch square prints / Weight: 467 grams / Charging method: Micro USB / Companion app: Yes / Other features: LCD screen, smartphone printing
Whereas the Instax Mini Evo’s companion app is more functional, Kodak’s hybrid Mini Shot 3 Retro is all about fun. The camera’s accompanying mobile app allows you to apply frames, stickers, filters, and a plethora of customization options to photos, making the camera great for scrapbooking. There’s even a beauty feature within the app to conceal blemishes, as well as a set of Snapchat-like filters you can use to add, say, dog ears, making this a fun instant camera to use as a mini photo booth of sorts at parties.
With its feature-rich app, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro is more modern than retro. It’s also a ton of fun.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Like the Instax Mini Evo, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro comes with an LCD screen (albeit a much smaller one) you can use to decide whether or not you want to print a shot. It also supports Bluetooth, and you can use the Kodak Photo Printer app to upload photos to social media or print decent, relatively crisp photos from your smartphone. Unlike the Mini Evo, however, Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro retails for around $170 and includes a pack of a film (it’s also often on sale for a lot less). It also uses cheaper film; you can currently pick up a 60-sheet cartridge for about $17.99, which equates to roughly $0.33 a shot. The fact that the film is cheaper arguably encourages play and creative experimentation, even if the large 3 x 3-inch square prints feel lower in quality and more flimsy than both Fujifilm’s and Polaroid’s.
Photos taken with the Kodak Mini Shot 3 aren’t particularly sharp and can have an excessive pink tint.Image: Sheena Vasani / The Verge
However, there are notable drawbacks to the Kodak Mini Shot 3. My biggest issue is that the resulting prints of photos taken with the camera aren’t nearly as crisp or clear as those taken with a smartphone. Photo quality wasn’t consistently as good as the Mini Evo’s or Mini 12’s nor, for the most part, as clear and sharp. The photos also sometimes had an excessive pink tint that can interfere with quality. It doesn’t store images the way the Mini Evo does, either, which means you can’t decide whether you’d like to print them later. It’s also noticeably heavier than the Mini Evo and, frankly, nowhere near as stylish.
Nonetheless, if you don’t mind compromising on photo quality and want a relatively affordable hybrid camera with fun app features, the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Retro is a good choice.
The best instant camera for retro fans
$119
The Good
Handsome, retro design
Prints dreamy, vintage-style photos
Several creative modes
USB-C
The Bad
Struggles in low light
Film takes up to 15 minutes to develop
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 4.2 x 3.5-inch prints / Weight: 451.5 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: Yes / Other features: Lens filter kit, film counter
If you’re looking for an instant camera that offers the most old-fashioned, instant-film experience, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the camera for you. Compared to the other instant cameras on this list, it most closely resembles vintage instant cameras like the Polaroid 600 with its classic, retro-inspired design. Meanwhile, its square I-Type film prints and iconic Polaroid-style frame give photos a more authentically vintage look.
At the same time, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus comes with a suite of modern features, including support for USB-C charging. It also offers Bluetooth and a companion app that boasts several creative modes, allowing greater photographic control. These include a remote shutter, a self-timer, and the “Polaroid Lab,” which lets you adjust the exposure and various color settings. The app also features a handful of shooting modes — including a manual option — and the camera comes with a set of five colored lenses you can snap onto the front. These were enjoyable to play with and allowed for more artistic expression.
If there’s one thing the Polaroid Now Plus isn’t known for, it’s portability. Given how heavy, large, and awkwardly sized it is, it’s not the kind of instant camera you can easily slip into your purse or carry around. Plus, it takes up to 15 minutes for prints to develop, and you have to ensure it’s not exposed to light while developing. That’s quite an inconvenience if you’re out with friends, say, at the beach on a sunny day.
The photos I took with the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus weren’t that true to life, but they did give off an old-school vibe that I found charming.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
If you’re looking for an instant camera that can easily print a good, clear photo without much effort on your part, this is not the camera for you. Of all the cameras on this list, the latest Polaroid Now Plus struggles with low-light environments the most. I could barely see images I took indoors, and I could only get the clearest shots when the light was directly behind me during the day — specifically, in the morning. Even these images weren’t as clear in comparison to Instax film, and both contrast and color saturation levels tend to be quite low.
Admittedly, this gave my pictures more of a dreamy vintage look that felt artistic, and you can use the Polaroid Lab to slightly adjust saturation and exposure settings. However, doing so is time-consuming. Given all these issues, I found it was easy to waste film, which proved expensive. After all, you only get eight I-Type sheets for $16.99, and that’s in addition to forking out $149.99 for the camera.
Truth be told, however, you could argue that many of these shortcomings are typical of a retro Polaroid-inspired instant camera and, thus, part of the experience. If that’s what you’re looking for, and you don’t mind the price, the second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is the perfect camera for you.
The second-gen Polaroid Now Plus is a good combination of old-school and modern but was way too big for me to comfortably hold with just one hand.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
All that being said, it’s worth pointing out that Polaroid recently launched the $139.99 Now Plus Generation 3. The instant camera costs $10 less than its predecessor’s MSRP, though, at the moment, the second-gen model is on sale starting at $119.26.The new camera seems like it’s largely an iterative update, with a built-in tripod and four new colors to choose from instead of just three. It should also offer brighter, more accurate lighting in high-contrast scenes and improved depth perception, courtesy of upgrades to the ranging sensor, light meter position, and autofocus.
The best instant camera for portability
$72
The Good
Tiny and lightweight
Prints vintage-like photos just like the Polaroid Now Plus
USB-C
The Bad
Struggles in low light
Film takes up to 15 minutes to develop
No Bluetooth support or companion app
Film type: Polaroid i-Type Color Film (sold separately) / Film size: 2.6 x 2.1-inch prints / Weight: 239 grams / Charging method: USB-C / Companion app: No / Other features: Self-timer, selfie mirror, film counter
Whereas the Polaroid Now Plus is huge, the second-gen Polaroid Go is tiny. It easily fits into the palm of my hand — which is saying a lot, given I’m petite and a little over five feet tall — making it easily the most portable instant camera on our list. It also produces the smallest prints of all the instant cameras I tested, which could be nice if you’re trying to save some space and want something more compact than Instax Mini prints.
Weighing just over a pound, the latest Polaroid Go is also the lightest instant camera I’ve ever held, and you can easily use it with one hand. That’s actually pretty convenient, given I sometimes struggled to take pictures with the heavier Polaroid Now Plus and, to a lesser extent, some of the other instant cameras I tested. In fact, if the images produced looked more true-to-life and didn’t require you to hide them from light for about 15 minutes while developing, I’d be tempted to call this the best instant camera for travel or small children.
At $79.99, the latest Polaroid Go is the most affordable Polaroid camera on the market, with film that costs just a little more than Fujifilm’s Instax Mini shots (or about $19.99 for a 16-sheet pack). It also sports a small number of upgrades over the last-gen model despite retailing for $20 less. The most significant is USB-C support, which allows for faster charging and prevents you from having to spend money on AA batteries.
Polaroid also claims the camera produces clearer stills than its predecessor, but truthfully, I didn’t see a significant difference from one generation to the next. The photos are a little brighter, but if anything, the original Polaroid Go — like the Now Plus — produced warmer pictures that I thought were truer to life. Still, the photos are charming in the way only a Polaroid photo can be. Contrast and color saturation levels are still low but in a way that exudes the vintage, almost dreamy look of the photos taken with the Now Plus.
The second-gen Polaroid Go produces charming photos but with a cooler tone.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
Unlike the Now Plus, however, the Go lacks creative modes and more advanced features, although it does offer a helpful self-timer and a larger selfie mirror. There’s also no Bluetooth support and, thus, no fancy app that will allow you to add extra effects. Instead, it’s just a simple point-and-shoot camera, just like the Instax Mini 12, which makes it a little easier to use. In addition, as mentioned, the prints are smaller than those of the Instax Mini, which could be a drawback for those who prefer larger, more traditional Polaroid photos. While it produces similar vintage-style shots, design-wise, it doesn’t look anything like old-school Polaroid cameras, which could also take away from the retro experience some desire.
The Polaroid Go is easy to hold with one hand.Photo by Sheena Vasani / The Verge
That said, none of the older Polaroid cameras came with an app, either. All in all, the Go’s simplicity makes it a suitable candidate for those seeking an easy-to-use camera that provides a more traditional instant film experience — one they can take advantage of just about anywhere for half the price of the Polaroid Now Plus.
Other instant cameras to consider
The Kodak Smile Plus is another hybrid instant camera you can use to print smartphone photos. It’s smaller and less expensive than Kodak’s Mini Shot 3 Retro 3 at $99.99, and it’s available in a variety of vibrant colors that should appeal to children. It also comes with physical filter-changing lens and prints on Zinc paper, allowing you to use your photos as stickers.
However, it lacks a built-in display, so you can’t choose which images you want to print directly on the camera itself. This often results in more wasted shots, especially since image quality is so-so at best, even when compared to those of the Retro 3. Photos are nowhere near as clear as the Instax Mini 12’s, either, especially in areas that are either too bright or too dark.
That being said, the Smile Plus does offer a microSD card slot, so you can store and view photos elsewhere. It pairs with an app that’s similar to the Retro 3’s as well, and although the software is not as snappy or feature-rich, it still allows you to add a variety of filters and frames. Ultimately, I’d recommend the Retro 3 since it can often be found for less than $120, but the Smile Plus is a good, budget-friendly alternative.
From photo quality to the lever you pull to print photos, Leica’s Sofort 2 is a terrific camera that’s remarkably similar to the Instax Mini Evo. In all of my tests, the photos I took with both looked identical. The two hybrid cameras also print smartphone photos via Instax Mini film and offer 10 film and lens effects, along with a macro mode for those who want more creative control. The Sofort 2’s minimalistic look is stylish, too, even if it’s not as charming as the retro-inspired Evo.
The drawback to the Sofort 2 is that it’s twice the price of the Evo. It’s hard to recommend at $389 since most people would likely consider the differences between the two cameras relatively minor. The user interface is easier to navigate on the Leica, though, and I appreciate the included lens cap and extended two-year warranty. I also like that it lets you print photos taken with other Leica cameras via the companion app — a nice perk for Leica fans. Nonetheless, I don’t think those perks are enough to justify spending nearly $200 more.
If you’re looking for an analog instant camera that’s more advanced, Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 99 is one to consider. At around $200, Fujifilm’s latest instant camera is not as affordable as the Instax Mini 12, but it’s certainly a step up from the one-button point-and-click camera given it has multiple brightness settings, focus zones, color effects, and even two shutter buttons for greater creative control. The camera even comes with a tripod socket and an aluminum extension column, as well as a Sports Mode designed to further reduce blur while capturing fast-moving subjects.
Thanks to the added level of customization, I was able to capture higher-quality photos that looked truer to life than those from the Instax Mini 12 and Mini Evo. Granted, the Mini 99 is an analog camera and not a hybrid like the $199.99 Mini Evo, meaning you shouldn’t buy it if you also want to print smartphone photos. The new model also isn’t as simple to use as the Mini 12, so I wouldn’t recommend it for young children. Still, for an advanced analog instant camera, it’s relatively easy to set up and use, rendering it as much fun for budding photographers as more experienced shooters.
While it didn’t make the cut, the Instax Square SQ1 is also worth a brief mention. Like the Mini 12, the Instax Square SQ1 produces good-quality shots, is easy to set up and use, and comes with a built-in selfie mirror. The reason we didn’t include it above, however, is that it costs nearly twice as much as the Mini 12 at $119.95, though we do sometimes see it on sale for $100.
That said, it might be worth a look if you prefer large 2.4 x 2.4-inch square prints and relatively true-to-life photos over vintage-looking stills. After all, the SQ1 is still cheaper than the Polaroid Now Plus and produces higher-quality images than the Kodak Mini Shot 3 Square Retro, which also prints similarly sized square shots.
Fujifilm also sells the newer Instax Square SQ40. It’s similar to the Instax Square SQ1 but with a vintage look that’s more visually striking, yet it’s also more expensive at $149. Given it produces similarly good-quality photos and rarely goes on sale, I’d recommend the Instax Square SQ1 or the more capable Instax Mini Evo for $50 more.
Fujifilm’s forthcoming Instax Wide Evo Hybrid is nearly identical to the Instax Mini Evo You can use it to print photos directly from your smartphone, though the $349 camera also comes with a 15.67mm lens — the widest used on any Instax camera — for taking wide-format pictures. While it’s currently available in Japan and Australia, Fujifilm hasn’t specified a US launch date, other than “soon.”
Ultimately, I preferred the smaller, more travel-friendly Instax Mini Evo, but if you’re into wide prints (and don’t mind spending twice as much), the Wide Evo Hybrid is rather fun. The photo quality is solid and on par with both the Instax Mini Evo and Instax Mini 12. The main difference is that the Wide Evo’s lens captures a broader field of view. It also offers a few additional lens and film effects, giving users a bit more creative control. I especially liked the Degree Control feature, which lets you fine-tune the intensity of each lens effect applied to your image.
Plus, unlike the Wide 400, it’s a hybrid camera with an LCD screen — a helpful perk that can cut down on wasted shots. However, at $349, it’s a whopping $150 more than both the Mini Evo and the Wide 400. My other main complaint is that there’s a slight delay between pressing the shutter and the photo being taken — something I didn’t notice with the Mini Evo. It’s not a dealbreaker, but it can be frustrating when trying to capture fast-moving subjects like a dog or a hyper toddler.
If you’re into wide-format instant cameras but don’t want to spend $349 — or prefer a more traditional analog experience — the Instax $149.95 Wide 400 is a solid pick. The basic point-and-shoot produces similar photos to the Wide Evo, and in some ways, it’s easier to use, thanks to its stripped-down feature set. That simplicity, however, comes at the cost of customization, making it harder to capture the perfect shot. It also swaps an LCD display for a large viewfinder and is noticeably heavier than the Instax Mini Evo. Nonetheless, if you’re after wide prints at a more affordable price, it’s a worthwhile option.
Fujifilm recently announced the $129.95 Instax Mini 41, which is the follow-up to the $99 Instax Mini 40. The updated model retains its retro design but introduces parallax correction, a feature borrowed from the Instax Mini 12 to help users avoid off-center shots when taking close-ups.
The Polaroid Flip is a new, $199.99 instant camera that introduces scene analysis, which helps prevent exposure and focus issues by flashing a red LED warning light through the viewfinder. That’s a handy addition, as Polaroid says the Flip has the most powerful flash of any of its instant cameras (though its intensity can be adjusted to prevent overexposing close-ups). In addition, the Flip features new autofocus capabilities powered by a sonar sensor that automatically selects from one of four lenses.
Polaroid launched the Now Plus Generation 3, a sequel to our current pick for the best retro-inspired camera. The new model is nearly identical to the second-gen Now Plus, only it’s available in six colors and features a built-in tripod. It also benefits from autofocus improvements and a better light meter position, which, according to Polaroid, should result in better photos.
Update, June 17th: Adjusted pricing/availability and added our thoughts on Fujifilm’s Instax Wide Evo.
Every week, we gather a panel of our MLB experts to rank every team based on a combination of what we’ve seen so far and what we knew going into the season. Those power rankings look at teams as a whole — both at the plate and in the field.
But, how different would those rankings be if we were to look only at major league offenses?
We’ve seen a number of offensive explosions so far in the 2025 season — from torpedo bats taking the league by storm on opening weekend thanks to the Yankees’ barrage of home runs to Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani each putting together yet another all-time campaign at the plate.
The latest offensive shake-up came in the form of a blockbuster trade, with the Red Sox sending All-Star slugger Rafael Devers to the Giants in a deal that reverberated around the league. How did it impact the two teams’ offensive outlooks?
Our MLB power rankers came together to sort baseball’s lineups based on what they’ve seen so far and where teams currently stand. We also asked ESPN MLB experts Jeff Passan, David Schoenfield and Bradford Doolittle to break down the top 10 offenses in baseball, from each team’s catalyst to the lineup’s biggest weakness.
Top 10 lineups
Why it’s so fearsome: You start with the second-best hitter in the world in Shohei Ohtani, add in the National League’s leading hitter for average in Freddie Freeman and the NL’s OBP leader in Will Smith, mix in Mookie Betts, and finish with power up and down the lineup — and you might have the best lineup in Dodgers history. Indeed, their current wRC+ of 124 would be the highest in franchise history. There is just no room for opposing pitchers to breathe, and the Dodgers have a nice balance of left- and right-handed hitters who make it difficult for opposing managers to optimize their bullpen matchups.
One weakness:Michael Conforto has been a big disappointment as a free agent, hitting .170 with only four home runs while playing nearly every game so far. The bench was weak to start the season, but the Dodgers jettisoned longtime veterans Chris Taylor and Austin Barnes and called up Hyeseong Kim and top prospect Dalton Rushing. Kim has been outstanding, hitting .382 in his first 30 games, while Rushing has played sparingly as the backup catcher.
Player who makes it all click: As the leadoff hitter, Ohtani’s presence sets the tone from the first pitch of the game — and he already has hit seven first-inning home runs in 2025. With 73 runs in the Dodgers’ first 72 games (he sat out two of them), Ohtani is on pace for a remarkable 164 runs scored, which has been topped only twice since 1900 — once each by Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. (They also each have the only other seasons with at least 160 runs scored.) With Ohtani making his 2025 pitching debut Monday, we’ll see if that affects his offense, but it didn’t during his final season with the Angels in 2023 when he posted a 1.066 OPS while pitching. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: The Yankees homer more than any team in the American League. They walk more than any team in all of MLB. They don’t strike out excessively. They punish fastballs. Judge, the best hitter in baseball, anchors their lineup. Seven other regulars are slugging at least .428 in an environment where the leaguewide slug is under .400. There are 100 more reasons the Yankees’ lineup induces such anxiety in opposing pitchers, but it can be encapsulated this way: It’s a lineup without a real weak link, filled with professional hitters who take quality at-bats, at a time when so few make that a priority.
One weakness: Calling this a weakness is a stretch, because the most important point about the Yankees’ lineup is that it doesn’t have a weakness, but they have been worse with runners in scoring position than in situations without runners on second or third. The Marlins have more home runs with players in scoring position than the Yankees. New York’s slugging percentage in such situations dips from .451 to .407 — good for 13th in MLB. It’s also 140 points below the Dodgers’ mark. But fear not: Slugger Giancarlo Stanton, who epitomized clutch for the Yankees last postseason, is back after sitting out the season’s first 2½ months. As if the rich need to get any richer.
Player who makes it all click: What, were you expecting J.C. Escarra? The answer, of course, is Judge, the two-time AL MVP whose combination of power and plate discipline is gifting the Yankees another potential all-time season. It’s not simply the .378 batting average — which is 56 points higher than his career best — or the resplendent home runs he hits, to left and center and right, making the whole field his playground. Even after a miserable series against the Red Sox over the weekend, there is an expectation that Judge will rebound because he hits the ball so hard and so consistently makes contact. The Yankees without Judge are good; the Yankees with him are undeniable. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: The lineup depth has been ridiculous, and that trait has been even more stark since Matt Shaw returned from an early-season demotion and began contributing. The Cubs’ collective OPS from spots seven through nine in the batting order is more than 50 points better than the second-best team. Some of that stems from Pete Crow-Armstrong hitting seventh early on, but Chicago has maintained its top-to-bottom consistency all season. This keeps the plate full for run-producers Crow-Armstrong, Kyle Tucker and Seiya Suzuki.
One weakness: The Cubs have been good at just about everything that goes with producing runs. They rank in the top 10 in all three slash categories, are fifth in homers and second in steals. You really have to squint to find a weakness. You can point to a big disparity in road production (.808 OPS) compared to what the Cubs have done at Wrigley Field (.702 OPS). But that too might even out as the weather factors in Chicago work more consistently in favor of hitters.
Player who makes it all click: Crow-Armstrong might be the Cubs’ best MVP candidate, but Tucker is the best hitter and the best exemplar of Chicago’s good-at-everything attack. Tucker leads the team in runs created and OPS+, and though he’s not Crow-Armstrong on the bases, he has swiped 18 of 19 bags. None of this is out of scale with Tucker’s track record. This is who he is — except maybe a little better, as he has walked more than he has struck out. If Tucker’s power bat heats up with the summer weather, look out. — Doolittle
Why it’s so fearsome: The Diamondbacks do a little bit of everything. They already have two 20-homer hitters in Corbin Carroll and Eugenio Suarez, plus Ketel Marte, who sat out a month because of injury but could still reach 30 home runs. They are fourth in the majors in walks and fifth in on-base percentage, so they get on base. Geraldo Perdomo has been a solid contributor the past two seasons but has added some power. He has more walks than strikeouts and has already established a career high in RBIs, adding depth. Josh Naylor is hitting around .300 while replacing Christian Walker’s production at first base.
One weakness: Center fielder Alek Thomas is the only regular with a below-average OPS+, and even then, he’s not awful. The bench is a little thin beyond Tim Tawa and Randal Grichuk, as backup catcher Jose Herrera has provided little offense. The Diamondbacks’ biggest potential weakness is their struggle against left-handed pitchers. (They have an OPS more than 100 points lower than against right-handers.) Carroll, Naylor and the switch-hitting Marte have each been significantly better against righties.
Player who makes it all click: As explosive as Carroll has been at the top of the order, Marte is the team’s best all-around hitter. Like Perdomo, he has more walks than strikeouts, making him a tough out with his ability to put the ball in play and also take free passes. He has the power (36 home runs in 2024) to clear the bases, but he also excels as a baserunner and can have Naylor and Suarez drive him in. When the Diamondbacks reached the World Series in 2023, Marte was the offensive leader, hitting .329/.380/.534 that postseason. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: The Mets’ lineup runs sneaky deep, boasts a combination of average and power, and has the fourth-lowest strikeout rate in the major leagues. Low strikeouts often equate to decent batting averages, but the Venn diagram with contact orientation and power is sparsely populated. Beyond the overall numbers, the Mets’ lineup is packed with stars: Juan Soto, Francisco Lindor and the team’s best hitter this season, Pete Alonso. A resurgent Jeff McNeil deepens a group that hasn’t received quite the expected output from Soto. He’s starting to find his rhythm, though, and once that happens, the Mets are bound to be even better.
One weakness: Considering the Mets have multiple options at third base, the quest for an internal solution isn’t banking on the fortunes of a single player. It could be Mark Vientos, the postseason star last year who’s set to begin a rehab assignment next week after a disappointing start to the season. It could be Brett Baty, who has shown plenty of power but still sports a .267 on-base percentage. It could be Ronny Mauricio, the rookie whose pop — and allergy to getting on base — is similar to Baty’s. Regardless of who it is, manager Carlos Mendoza has time to figure out how to maneuver his lineup so that other offensive holes at catcher and center field (when Jeff McNeil isn’t playing there) aren’t nearly as glaring.
Player who makes it all click: The Mets have been clicking without the best version of Soto, so it’s no surprise that in the past 16 games — in which Soto has hit .333/.507/.685 with five home runs — they have scored at least four runs 15 times. As good as New York is without Soto performing, he is their double-click — the catalyzer who brings about action. Even at his lowest points this season, he was managing to get on base, and that’s what makes Soto such a transformative player: His floor is extremely high. When he’s feeling his swing and unleashing shots to all fields, he’s capable of reaching a ceiling higher than all but a handful of hitters in the game. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: The Phillies have veterans with big names who have all been productive hitters at various points in their careers — although not necessarily in 2025. Kyle Schwarber has been the lynchpin so far, moved out of the leadoff spot and leading the team in home runs, runs scored and RBIs. Trea Turner is having his best season since joining the Phillies in 2023, with a .364 OBP that would be his highest since 2021. Alec Bohm has been on his usual roller coaster — homerless in April but hitting .331 with seven home runs since the beginning of May.
One weakness: Catcher J.T. Realmuto has carried a huge workload through the years but is now 34 years old and showing some signs of age with career lows in batting average, slugging and OPS. Bryson Stott was an above-average hitter in 2023 before dipping last season, and he has been even worse in 2025 with an OPS+ of just 75. Part-time center fielder Johan Rojas provides speed and defense, but not much offense, and as usual, the bench is pretty weak. Yes, that’s more than one weakness.
Player who makes it all click: As important as it is to have Turner getting on base, this lineup will always revolve around Bryce Harper and his ability to go on hot stretches. He hasn’t had one yet this season and is currently on the injured list because of a right wrist injury. His .446 slugging percentage and .814 OPS are his lowest since 2016. Harper has always been an outlier of sorts — he ranks in the second percentile in swing-and-miss rate in 2025 but in the 67th percentile in strikeout rate — so these aren’t necessarily signs of a decline. Philly just needs him to get hot once he returns. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: It’s not. That’s the thing about the Tigers. One gander at their lineup cards — manager AJ Hinch has used 60 different variations over 71 games — and it doesn’t exactly strike fear. And yet that’s the beauty of the 2025 Tigers: They’re managing to score oodles of runs without a single hitter sporting a slugging percentage higher than .500. It’s not like the Tigers are particularly good at avoiding the strikeout (24th in MLB) or taking walks (18th). They don’t hit home runs in bunches (10th) or steal bases at all (30th). They’re simply solid, almost from top to bottom, replete with enough hitters who are league average or better to cobble together runs.
One weakness: The strikeouts are problematic — and a third of Detroit’s regulars struggle to counterbalance them with walks. Kerry Carpenter (52 strikeouts, seven walks), super-utility man Javier Baez (48 strikeouts, eight walks) and catcher Dillon Dingler (56 strikeouts, five walks) constitute one-third of players in all of MLB with at least 48 punchouts and fewer than 10 walks. Riley Greene’s 93 strikeouts lead MLB. And in the postseason, where the pitching gets better and every out is valuable, giving away at-bats by swinging and missing too much is a distinct no-no. Even with the strikeouts, the Tigers won’t be an easy out in October. But among the teams with legitimate playoff aspirations, only Boston punches out more, and it’s the sort of thing that could haunt Detroit.
Player who makes it all click: There isn’t one player, per se. One night it might be outfielder Greene, and another one first baseman Spencer Torkelson, and sometimes outfielder Carpenter, and maybe even infielder Zach McKinstry or outfielder Wenceel Perez. But if there’s one player whose skills differ from his teammates’ and set the table, it’s second baseman Gleyber Torres. Operating on a one-year deal, Torres has been the Tigers’ most consistent hitter this season, getting on base at a .377 clip and walking more than he strikes out. He exemplifies Detroit’s lineup — its team, really — in that nothing he does is particularly sexy but it’s unquestionably effective. — Passan
Why it’s so fearsome: “Fearsome” might be a stretch, but after a horrible April (.656 OPS), the Blue Jays did follow up with a strong May (.785 OPS). June has so far split the difference (.709 OPS), so maybe that’s the true level here, which makes this more of a league-average offense — and, indeed, that’s where the Jays currently stand in runs per game. But there is potential for more here, with Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Anthony Santander, Bo Bichette and Andres Gimenez all capable of more offense than they’ve offered so far.
One weakness: Power. George Springer leads the team with 10 home runs, and the Jays have been outhomered by their opponents 99-70. Left field has been a problem all season, as seven different players have started there, combining to hit .223 with only four home runs. Gimenez was acquired for his defense at second base, but he has been a flop at the plate, hitting .212/.291/.327 with four home runs (and that’s after homering three times in the first five games). Lately, he has even been benched against left-handers.
Player who makes it all click: The $500 million man is hitting more like a $50 million man right now (.275/.375/.414, eight home runs) — but when he’s hot, the offense runs through him. Guerrero had a monster season in 2021 — but that was the year the Jays played more than half of their games in minor league parks because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Guerrero had a 1.418 OPS in their spring training park and a 1.180 OPS in Buffalo (and a .935 at Rogers Centre). He was great again last season — thanks to a .342 BABIP. This season, it’s back down to .299, right around his career mark, but even that doesn’t explain the decline in power. The Jays need Guerrero to start mashing. — Schoenfield
9. Athletics
Why it’s so fearsome: They hit home runs and they hit for average, ranking in the top 10 in the majors in both categories. Jacob Wilson has been the breakout star with a .362 average in his rookie season, Brent Rooker is on his way to a third straight 30-homer season, Lawrence Butler is heating up and looking like the hitter he was in the second half of 2024, and rookie first baseman Nick Kurtz has also added another power bat to the lineup (after a slow start, he has hit .286 with six home runs in his past 11 games). What we don’t fully know yet, based on a small sample size, is how Sutter Health Park is helping. The A’s have hit for a higher average at home (.268 to .240) but have hit more home runs on the road (53 in 38 games compared to 39 in 36 games at home).
One weakness:JJ Bleday had a solid 2024 season, with 20 home runs and a 120 OPS+ in 159 games, but struggled out of the gate in 2025, earning a short demotion to Triple-A. Rookie Denzel Clarke replaced him, and though he has been a defensive wunderkind, he has been overmatched at the plate, hitting .209 with 34 strikeouts and one walk. Overall, the A’s rank 29th in the majors in OPS from their center fielders, ahead of only the Guardians.
Player who makes it all click: Wilson has been amazing, showcasing rare bat-to-ball skills with only 18 strikeouts in 289 plate appearances. The big surprise has been the 23 extra-base hits, including eight home runs, after going homerless in 92 at-bats during last season’s call-up. He has also been drawing a few more walks after beginning the season without one in his first 22 games, so his OBP is over .400. Now that he appears entrenched in the No. 2 spot, he’s going to give the middle of the order a lot of RBI opportunities. — Schoenfield
Why it’s so fearsome: In the Cardinals’ case, the fear factor is probably pointed in the wrong direction — as in their own fear of regression. I suspect their ranking is more a product of what they’ve done than what they are likely to do going forward. Ultimately, a team like the Braves, or even the reshuffled Giants or Red Sox, might be better placed here — but you never know. It’s a lineup with batting average and baserunning as the standout traits. The average part of it can be a house of cards — no pun intended — but the underlying expected stats backstop St. Louis’ offense so far.
One weakness: Only six clubs have a lower secondary average than the Cardinals — mostly a who’s who of the worst offenses in the majors. Secondary traits tend to be more stable than BABIP-related indicators, so St. Louis will need to continue to churn out its admirable strikeout and line-drive rates — a good formula for an average-based offense. But if the average falls, the Cardinals don’t draw enough walks or mash enough homers to make up the difference.
Player who makes it all click:Brendan Donovan‘s career year serves as an avatar for what the St. Louis offense is all about. He leads the Redbirds in runs created, and because he’s doing that while mostly playing in the middle of the infield (which boosts positional value), he’s far and away the team leader in offensive bWAR. The question is will it last? On one hand, even though Donovan has a career BABIP of .319, his 2025-to-date figure of .355 is going to be tough to maintain. On the other hand, Donovan’s 31% line drive rate is tied for second in the NL with teammate Willson Contreras. — Doolittle
