Pre-game prop analysis powered by recent player performance. Every prop graded before tipoff.
| # | Sport | Player | Matchup | Stat | Line | Odds | L5 Avg | Edge | Hit | Trend | Score | Grade | Final | Over | Under | Books |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1851 | MLB | Mookie Betts | LAD vs SFG | RBI | 1.5 | +475 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1852 | MLB | Mookie Betts | LAD vs SFG | TB | 1.5 | +120 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1853 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | H | 0.5 | -190 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1854 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | H | 1.5 | +260 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1855 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | HR | 0.5 | +275 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1856 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | R | 0.5 | -120 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1857 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | R | 1.5 | +475 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1858 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | RBI | 0.5 | +140 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1859 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | RBI | 1.5 | +450 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1860 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami | CWS vs KCR@CHW | TB | 1.5 | +125 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1861 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | H | 0.5 | -145 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1862 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | H | 1.5 | +340 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1863 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | HR | 0.5 | +1400 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1864 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | R | 0.5 | +180 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1865 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | R | 1.5 | +1300 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1866 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | RBI | 0.5 | +390 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1867 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | RBI | 1.5 | +1300 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1868 | MLB | Myles Straw | TOR vs TBR | TB | 1.5 | +200 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1869 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | H | 0.5 | -130 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1870 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | H | 1.5 | +380 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1871 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | HR | 0.5 | +1200 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1872 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | R | 0.5 | +165 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1873 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | R | 1.5 | +1000 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1874 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | RBI | 0.5 | +260 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1875 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | RBI | 1.5 | +900 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1876 | MLB | Nasim Nunez | WSH vs WSN@CIN | TB | 1.5 | +220 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1877 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | H | 0.5 | -185 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1878 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | H | 1.5 | +300 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1879 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | HR | 0.5 | +850 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1880 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | R | 0.5 | +155 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1881 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | R | 1.5 | +1300 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1882 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | RBI | 0.5 | +220 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1883 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1884 | MLB | Nathan Church | STL vs Athletics | TB | 1.5 | +160 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1885 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | H | 0.5 | -190 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1886 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | H | 1.5 | +280 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1887 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | HR | 0.5 | +450 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1888 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | R | 0.5 | +105 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1889 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | R | 1.5 | +600 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1890 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | RBI | 0.5 | +170 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1891 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | RBI | 1.5 | +475 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1892 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe | CIN vs WSN | TB | 1.5 | +130 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1893 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | H | 0.5 | -164 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1894 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | H | 1.5 | +320 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1895 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | HR | 0.5 | +900 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1896 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | R | 0.5 | +175 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1897 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | R | 1.5 | +1300 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1898 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | RBI | 0.5 | +220 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1899 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1900 | MLB | Nick Fortes | TB vs TBR@TOR | TB | 1.5 | +180 | — | — | — | — | 0 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING |
Every prop scored on a 0–100 scale before tipoff — built to separate high-confidence plays from coin flips.
The Prop Grader analyzes every available player prop before games begin. It pulls recent performance data — the last 5 to 10 games — and runs each prop through a multi-factor scoring model. The result is a composite score and letter grade that tells you how confident the data is behind any given prop.
Scoring Factors
Edge vs Line (up to 35 pts) — How far the player's recent average sits above or below the prop line. A large positive edge means the player has been consistently clearing this number.
Hit Rate (up to 25 pts) — Out of the last 5 games, how many times did the player actually beat this line? A 5/5 hit rate earns full marks.
Trend (up to 15 pts) — Is the player trending up or down? Compares the last 3 games against the last 10 to detect momentum shifts.
Role Stability (up to 15 pts) — For NBA, this checks minutes consistency. A starter playing 34+ minutes with low variance is more predictable than someone fluctuating between 20 and 35.
Odds Value (up to 10 pts) — Props with plus-money or short juice are more valuable than heavily juiced lines. Better odds mean better expected value.
Grade Scale
A (85–100) — Elite. Strong edge, near-perfect hit rate, positive trend, stable role. These are the highest-confidence props on the board.
B (75–84) — Strong. Most factors are favorable. Solid plays with data backing them up.
C (65–74) — Average. The numbers lean positive but there may be a weak factor pulling the score down.
D (55–64) — Below average. The edge is thin or the recent track record is inconsistent.
F (below 55) — Weak. The data doesn't support this prop. Proceed with caution or skip entirely.
Grades are computed before tipoff using data available at that time. After games complete, each prop is matched against the actual box score and marked as a win, loss, or push.