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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1901 | MLB | Marcus Semien 10 games | NYM vs LAD@NYM | H | 1.5 | +400 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1902 | MLB | Marcus Semien 10 games | NYM vs LAD@NYM | R | 1.5 | +1300 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.1 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1903 | MLB | Marcus Semien 10 games | NYM vs LAD@NYM | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.2 | 26 | F | 3.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1904 | MLB | Masataka Yoshida 10 games | BOS vs TOR@BOS | H | 1.5 | +240 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1905 | MLB | Masataka Yoshida 10 games | BOS vs TOR@BOS | R | 1.5 | +1000 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.1 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1906 | MLB | Masataka Yoshida 10 games | BOS vs TOR@BOS | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1907 | MLB | Masyn Winn 10 games | STL vs CIN@STL | H | 1.5 | +280 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | 2.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1908 | MLB | Masyn Winn 10 games | STL vs CIN@STL | R | 1.5 | +1000 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.2 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1909 | MLB | Masyn Winn 10 games | STL vs CIN@STL | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.4 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1910 | MLB | Masyn Winn 10 games | STL vs CIN@STL | TB | 1.5 | +140 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | 2.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1911 | MLB | Max Muncy 10 games | LAD vs LAD@NYM | H | 1.5 | +300 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.1 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1912 | MLB | Max Muncy 10 games | LAD vs LAD@NYM | R | 1.5 | +550 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1913 | MLB | Max Schuemann 10 games | NYY vs NYY@PHI | RBI | 1.5 | +900 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1914 | MLB | Michael Harris II 10 games | ATL vs ATL@BAL | RBI | 1.5 | +400 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.5 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1915 | MLB | Mike Trout 10 games | LAA vs LAA@SFG | R | 1.5 | +600 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.1 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1916 | MLB | Mike Trout 10 games | LAA vs LAA@SFG | RBI | 1.5 | +600 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.2 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1917 | MLB | Mike Yastrzemski 10 games | ATL vs ATL@BAL | H | 1.5 | +400 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +-0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1918 | MLB | Mike Yastrzemski 10 games | ATL vs ATL@BAL | R | 1.5 | +1000 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.5 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1919 | MLB | Mike Yastrzemski 10 games | ATL vs ATL@BAL | RBI | 0.5 | +233 | 0 | -0.5 | 0/5 | -0.6 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1920 | MLB | Munetaka Murakami 10 games | CWS vs HOU@CHW | RBI | 1.5 | +450 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 6.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1921 | MLB | Myles Straw 10 games | TOR vs TOR@BOS | H | 1.5 | +380 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1922 | MLB | Myles Straw 10 games | TOR vs TOR@BOS | R | 1.5 | +1500 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.1 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1923 | MLB | Myles Straw 10 games | TOR vs TOR@BOS | RBI | 1.5 | +1300 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1924 | MLB | Myles Straw 10 games | TOR vs TOR@BOS | TB | 1.5 | +220 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1925 | MLB | Nathaniel Lowe 10 games | CIN vs CIN@STL | R | 1.5 | +1300 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1926 | MLB | Nick Kurtz 10 games | ATH vs Athletics@ | R | 0.5 | -120 | 0 | -0.5 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | 1.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1927 | MLB | Nick Loftin 10 games | KC vs KCR@DET | R | 1.5 | +1300 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1928 | MLB | Nicky Lopez 10 games | TEX vs SEA@TEX | R | 1.5 | +1500 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1929 | MLB | Nico Hoerner 10 games | CHC vs CHC@PIT | R | 1.5 | +1300 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.1 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1930 | MLB | Nico Hoerner 10 games | CHC vs CHC@PIT | RBI | 1.5 | +800 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.5 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1931 | MLB | Oswald Peraza 10 games | LAA vs LAA@SFG | R | 1.5 | +1300 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1932 | MLB | Oswald Peraza 10 games | LAA vs LAA@SFG | RBI | 1.5 | +900 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | — | PENDING | PENDING | |
| 1933 | MLB | Otto Lopez 10 games | MIA vs SDP@MIA | R | 1.5 | +600 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.1 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1934 | MLB | Otto Lopez 10 games | MIA vs SDP@MIA | RBI | 1.5 | +800 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0.1 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1935 | MLB | Paul Goldschmidt 10 games | NYY vs NYY@PHI | RBI | 1.5 | +600 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | +0.1 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1936 | MLB | Pete Alonso 10 games | BAL vs ATL@BAL | RBI | 1.5 | +400 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.4 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1937 | MLB | Petey Halpin 10 games | CLE vs CLE@TBR | H | 0.5 | -111 | 0.2 | -0.3 | 1/5 | -0.8 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1938 | MLB | Petey Halpin 10 games | CLE vs CLE@TBR | R | 1.5 | +1500 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.5 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1939 | MLB | Petey Halpin 10 games | CLE vs CLE@TBR | RBI | 1.5 | +1000 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.4 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1940 | MLB | Randy Arozarena 10 games | SEA vs SEA@TEX | RBI | 1.5 | +800 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1941 | MLB | Riley Greene 10 games | DET vs KCR@DET | R | 1.5 | +500 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1942 | MLB | Riley Greene 10 games | DET vs KCR@DET | RBI | 1.5 | +340 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1943 | MLB | Ryan O'Hearn 10 games | PIT vs CHC@PIT | R | 1.5 | +800 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.4 | 26 | F | 2.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1944 | MLB | Ryan O'Hearn 10 games | PIT vs CHC@PIT | RBI | 1.5 | +500 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | 4.0 | WIN | LOSS | |
| 1945 | MLB | Sal Stewart 10 games | CIN vs CIN@STL | R | 1.5 | +700 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 0/5 | +0.3 | 26 | F | 1.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1946 | MLB | Sam Antonacci 10 games | CWS vs HOU@CHW | RBI | 1.5 | +700 | 0.2 | -1.3 | 0/5 | -0.5 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1947 | MLB | Sam Huff 9 games | BAL vs ATL@BAL | H | 1.5 | +600 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.2 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1948 | MLB | Sam Huff 9 games | BAL vs ATL@BAL | R | 1.5 | +1500 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1949 | MLB | Sam Huff 9 games | BAL vs ATL@BAL | RBI | 1.5 | +900 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | +0 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN | |
| 1950 | MLB | Sam Huff 9 games | BAL vs ATL@BAL | TB | 1.5 | +260 | 0 | -1.5 | 0/5 | -0.3 | 26 | F | 0.0 | LOSS | WIN |
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.