The Study in NumbersA snapshot of the research behind the rankings
124Coaches Analyzedcoach profiles
4Major LeaguesNFL · NBA · MLB · NHL
372Image Assessments3 photos per coach
468Facial LandmarksStandard Face Mesh points*

*468 is the standard MediaPipe Face Mesh landmark count. Confirm the same model was used in this study before publishing.

RotoGrinders Research · 2026

Big Four Coach Rankings

Compare the highest-scoring coaches overall or explore each major league.

RotoGrinders
Top 10 Leaderboard Scores out of 10 · Select a coach for the full breakdown
Model scores / 10 Higher scores indicate closer alignment with the facial-proportion measures used in the study, not coaching ability.

The PNG download includes the Top 10 from the league tab currently selected.

Source: RotoGrinders analysis of 124 coaches using 372 image assessments. Each coach's displayed score is averaged across three photographs.
The Data Behind the Rankings

What the Rankings Reveal

The five highest-scoring coaches in each league, with the individual facial-proportion measures behind their results.

Across All Four Leagues

Across 124 coaches in the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, Jeff Hafley leads the study with 7.17/10, followed by Kenny Atkinson (6.92). The NFL accounts for four of the overall top 10, the NHL three, the NBA two and MLB one. Scores reflect a photo-based facial-proportion model, not coaching performance or an objective measure of attractiveness.

NFL Top Five

NFL Coaches in Focus

A closer look at the model scores and standout facial-proportion measures of the league’s five highest-ranked coaches.

1

Jeff Hafley

Miami Dolphins
Score 7.17/10
9.05/10 Eye Width-to-Gap8.34/10 Facial Length-to-Width

What stands out: Jeff Hafley leads the league, with eye width-to-gap (9.05/10) his strongest individual measure. His next highest is facial length-to-width (8.34/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.52/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.34
Face vertical thirds8.26
Eye width vs. eye gap9.05
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.44
Landmark Proportions Score6.47/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length5.59
Eye gap / face width7.36

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

2

Jesse Minter

Baltimore Ravens
Score 6.75/10
9.77/10 Facial Length Ratio8.54/10 Eye Width-to-Gap

What stands out: Jesse Minter records 3 individual proportion scores of at least 8/10, led by facial length ratio (9.77).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score5.86/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width5.02
Face vertical thirds8.05
Eye width vs. eye gap8.54
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin1.84
Landmark Proportions Score8.52/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length9.77
Eye gap / face width7.26

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

3

Ben Johnson

Chicago Bears
Score 6.72/10
8.80/10 Eye Width-to-Gap8.36/10 Vertical Facial Thirds

What stands out: Ben Johnson records 3 individual proportion scores of at least 8/10, led by eye width-to-gap (8.80).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.49/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.21
Face vertical thirds8.36
Eye width vs. eye gap8.80
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.60
Landmark Proportions Score5.17/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length4.00
Eye gap / face width6.35

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

4

Matt LaFleur

Green Bay Packers
Score 6.62/10
9.54/10 Facial Width Ratio8.35/10 Facial Length-to-Width

What stands out: A 9.54/10 for facial width ratio is Matt LaFleur's standout result, while facial length-to-width follows at 8.35/10.

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score5.84/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.35
Face vertical thirds4.47
Eye width vs. eye gap4.91
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin5.62
Landmark Proportions Score8.18/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length6.81
Eye gap / face width9.54

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

5

Kevin Stefanski

Atlanta Falcons
Score 6.27/10
7.17/10 Facial Width Ratio7.07/10 Eye Width-to-Gap

What stands out: Kevin Stefanski's two highest individual measures are facial width ratio (7.17/10) and eye width-to-gap (7.07/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.42/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width5.51
Face vertical thirds7.00
Eye width vs. eye gap7.07
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin6.07
Landmark Proportions Score5.99/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length4.80
Eye gap / face width7.17

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

01End of NFL Top Five Back to Menu
NBA Top Five

NBA Coaches in Focus

A closer look at the model scores and standout facial-proportion measures of the league’s five highest-ranked coaches.

1

Kenny Atkinson

Cleveland Cavaliers
Score 6.92/10
9.06/10 Eye Width-to-Gap8.61/10 Facial Length-to-Width

What stands out: Kenny Atkinson leads the league, with eye width-to-gap (9.06/10) his strongest individual measure. His next highest is facial length-to-width (8.61/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.41/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.61
Face vertical thirds7.38
Eye width vs. eye gap9.06
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.60
Landmark Proportions Score5.94/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length6.20
Eye gap / face width5.68

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

2

Ime Udoka

Houston Rockets
Score 6.31/10
9.23/10 Eye Width-to-Gap9.06/10 Nose-to-Mouth / Mouth-to-Chin

What stands out: Ime Udoka's profile varies sharply: eye width-to-gap scores 9.23/10, compared with 2.19/10 for facial length ratio.

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.68/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width4.59
Face vertical thirds7.86
Eye width vs. eye gap9.23
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin9.06
Landmark Proportions Score3.55/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length2.19
Eye gap / face width4.91

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

3

Mitch Johnson

San Antonio Spurs
Score 6.25/10
9.03/10 Nose-to-Mouth / Mouth-to-Chin8.24/10 Facial Length-to-Width

What stands out: Mitch Johnson records 3 individual proportion scores of at least 8/10, led by nose-to-mouth versus mouth-to-chin (9.03).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.53/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.24
Face vertical thirds4.87
Eye width vs. eye gap3.99
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin9.03
Landmark Proportions Score5.68/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length3.36
Eye gap / face width8.00

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

4

Jordan Ott

Phoenix Suns
Score 5.89/10
7.77/10 Facial Length Ratio7.76/10 Vertical Facial Thirds

What stands out: Jordan Ott's two highest individual measures are facial length ratio (7.77/10) and vertical facial thirds (7.76/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score5.01/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width6.18
Face vertical thirds7.76
Eye width vs. eye gap2.78
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin3.33
Landmark Proportions Score7.65/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length7.77
Eye gap / face width7.53

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

5

Will Hardy

Utah Jazz
Score 5.86/10
8.62/10 Facial Width Ratio8.45/10 Facial Length Ratio

What stands out: Will Hardy's two highest individual measures are facial width ratio (8.62/10) and facial length ratio (8.45/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score4.52/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width3.94
Face vertical thirds4.79
Eye width vs. eye gap3.31
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin6.03
Landmark Proportions Score8.54/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length8.45
Eye gap / face width8.62

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

02End of NBA Top Five Back to Menu
MLB Top Five

MLB Coaches in Focus

A closer look at the model scores and standout facial-proportion measures of the league’s five highest-ranked coaches.

1

Aaron Boone

New York Yankees
Score 6.34/10
8.16/10 Eye Width-to-Gap7.42/10 Vertical Facial Thirds

What stands out: Aaron Boone leads the league, with eye width-to-gap (8.16/10) his strongest individual measure. His next highest is vertical facial thirds (7.42/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.67/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width6.19
Face vertical thirds7.42
Eye width vs. eye gap8.16
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.90
Landmark Proportions Score5.68/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length6.00
Eye gap / face width5.37

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

2

Mark Kotsay

Athletics
Score 6.26/10
7.97/10 Facial Width Ratio7.64/10 Eye Width-to-Gap

What stands out: Mark Kotsay's two highest individual measures are facial width ratio (7.97/10) and eye width-to-gap (7.64/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.29/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width4.63
Face vertical thirds6.95
Eye width vs. eye gap7.64
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin5.93
Landmark Proportions Score6.21/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length4.46
Eye gap / face width7.97

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

3

Chad Tracy

Boston Red Sox
Score 6.12/10
7.90/10 Facial Width Ratio7.48/10 Nose-to-Mouth / Mouth-to-Chin

What stands out: Chad Tracy's two highest individual measures are facial width ratio (7.90/10) and nose-to-mouth versus mouth-to-chin (7.48/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.56/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width7.09
Face vertical thirds5.97
Eye width vs. eye gap5.71
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin7.48
Landmark Proportions Score5.24/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length2.59
Eye gap / face width7.90

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

4

Clayton McCullough

Miami Marlins
Score 6.11/10
7.86/10 Facial Length-to-Width7.48/10 Facial Width Ratio

What stands out: Clayton McCullough's two highest individual measures are facial length-to-width (7.86/10) and facial width ratio (7.48/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.43/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width7.86
Face vertical thirds7.33
Eye width vs. eye gap3.44
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin7.08
Landmark Proportions Score5.49/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length3.49
Eye gap / face width7.48

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

5

Matt Quatraro

Kansas City Royals
Score 6.07/10
8.53/10 Eye Width-to-Gap7.74/10 Facial Length-to-Width

What stands out: Matt Quatraro's two highest individual measures are eye width-to-gap (8.53/10) and facial length-to-width (7.74/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.12/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width7.74
Face vertical thirds7.41
Eye width vs. eye gap8.53
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.79
Landmark Proportions Score3.99/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length3.31
Eye gap / face width4.67

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

03End of MLB Top Five Back to Menu
NHL Top Five

NHL Coaches in Focus

A closer look at the model scores and standout facial-proportion measures of the league’s five highest-ranked coaches.

1

Manny Malhotra

Vancouver Canucks
Score 6.58/10
8.56/10 Facial Length-to-Width7.43/10 Facial Width Ratio

What stands out: Manny Malhotra leads the league, with facial length-to-width (8.56/10) his strongest individual measure. His next highest is facial width ratio (7.43/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.46/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.56
Face vertical thirds3.97
Eye width vs. eye gap6.44
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin6.89
Landmark Proportions Score6.83/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length6.24
Eye gap / face width7.43

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

2

Ryan Craig

Vegas Golden Knights
Score 6.49/10
9.77/10 Facial Width Ratio8.52/10 Vertical Facial Thirds

What stands out: A 9.77/10 for facial width ratio is Ryan Craig's standout result, while vertical facial thirds follows at 8.52/10.

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score6.18/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width5.87
Face vertical thirds8.52
Eye width vs. eye gap4.44
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin5.89
Landmark Proportions Score7.09/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length4.42
Eye gap / face width9.77

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

3

Jared Bednar

Colorado Avalanche
Score 6.32/10
8.84/10 Facial Length-to-Width7.96/10 Nose-to-Mouth / Mouth-to-Chin

What stands out: Jared Bednar's profile varies sharply: facial length-to-width scores 8.84/10, compared with 1.94/10 for facial length ratio.

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score7.85/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width8.84
Face vertical thirds6.74
Eye width vs. eye gap7.85
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin7.96
Landmark Proportions Score3.26/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length1.94
Eye gap / face width4.58

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

4

Mike Babcock

Edmonton Oilers
Score 6.26/10
8.92/10 Facial Width Ratio8.30/10 Eye Width-to-Gap

What stands out: Mike Babcock's profile varies sharply: facial width ratio scores 8.92/10, compared with 1.43/10 for nose-to-mouth versus mouth-to-chin.

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score5.48/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width6.60
Face vertical thirds5.56
Eye width vs. eye gap8.30
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin1.43
Landmark Proportions Score7.83/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length6.73
Eye gap / face width8.92

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

5

Jon Cooper

Tampa Bay Lightning
Score 6.20/10
8.42/10 Facial Length Ratio7.83/10 Facial Width Ratio

What stands out: Jon Cooper's two highest individual measures are facial length ratio (8.42/10) and facial width ratio (7.83/10).

Explore Score Breakdown
Neoclassical Score5.23/10Summary of 4 measures
Face length vs. width5.27
Face vertical thirds6.51
Eye width vs. eye gap4.24
Nose–mouth vs. mouth–chin4.90
Landmark Proportions Score8.12/10Summary of 2 measures
Eye–mouth / face length8.42
Eye gap / face width7.83

The two summary scores are calculated from the six measures shown here, not added as separate measurements.

04End of NHL Top Five Back to Menu

Complete Coach Rankings

Search all 124 coaches, filter by league and sort the scores. Each column includes a plain-English explanation. All scores are out of 10.

Hover or tap ⓘ for score definitions

05End of Full Rankings Back to Menu

Methodology & Sources

How the rankings were built, what the scores mean, and where the underlying coach data came from.

This analysis uses computer vision-based facial landmark analysis to compare measured facial proportions across head coaches in the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL. The supplied Big 4 coaches workbook contains three image-level assessments per coach, and each overall coach score is the average of those three final image scores.

Coaches ranked

124 head coaches across the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL are included in the study.

Computer vision and images

A consistent facial landmark measurement framework was applied to 372 image assessments, with three photographs evaluated for each coach. The six measurements compare distances and proportions between facial features.

Image-level score

The six individual measurements contribute equally to each photograph's final score. The two score-family composites summarise those measurements and are not counted again as separate inputs.

Final coach score

Each coach’s three final image scores are averaged to produce the displayed overall score. Rankings are ordered using unrounded averages, with displayed scores rounded to two decimal places.

How to interpret the scores

The scores reflect how closely each image aligns with the study’s facial-proportion model. They are not objective measures of attractiveness and do not measure coaching ability or professional performance.

Image selection and limitations

Three photographs were assessed for each coach using the same measurement and scoring framework to support consistent comparisons. Clear visibility of facial features is important for computer vision-based measurements; differences in lighting, camera angle, facial expression and cropping can still affect individual image scores.

Important context: Attractiveness is subjective and can vary across individuals and cultures. This ranking reflects similarity to a selected set of facial proportions in the supplied images and should not be interpreted as a universal or definitive measure.

Sources

Coach and team listings

Coach and team information was taken from ESPN coaching directories for NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, as recorded in the source workbook.

Scoring dataset

All model scores, image-level assessments and final coach rankings come from the supplied Big 4 coaches analysis workbook.

All scores shown on the page are out of 10.

06End of Methodology Back to Menu