It is time once again for the Annual SFAVolleyBlog All Conference
Teams! A lot of this post is recycled from year to year, but if you take the
time to read here, then please make sure you refresh yourself with my
methodology and where I tend to align and diverge from the way that the
conference creates its official lists.
Continuing the Changes
Last year I wrote that I had made decision to dovetail
this post into one that mimics the conference structure for the first time. We’ll
continue that into 2025.
This is the 15th year (13 in SLC, twice in WAC) I have done this exercise, and I
have made repeated arguments for creating actual teams. Typically, I would pick
a first, second and third team that each had minimum positional requirements so
that, for instance, the "first team" was actually a playable team on
the court. I've tried to make justifications for why I thought this was best in
the past and I still believe in those arguments. However, over the years I've
seen just how many different ways this can be done and how virtually every
method has its pros and cons.
Similarities and Differences to How the Conference
Makes Official Lists
Let me explain the similarities and differences in my
methods and those that you will see that generate the official lists later in
the week:
First, coaches nominate a list of players. I find this
totally unnecessary and this is one place where I have chosen continually not
to yield. What this means is that the pool of players that can receive
official votes is dictated entirely by the coaches themselves. Sorry,
coaches... that's too much power and it can occasionally be abused. Here at SFA
VolleyBlog, the player universe that we can choose from is all rosters on all
teams. To me, I see the coaches nominating players as a MAJOR flaw in their
process.
That's basically the only main difference in how these
picks will be made, because now what happens is that the coaches rank 21
players from the submitted nominees and the votes are tallied up. The top 14
vote getters receive first team honor and the next seven are awarded second
team. A coach cannot vote for their own players. From these votes the top vote
getter at freshman, setter, libero, and newcomer are determined and given those
special awards. A coach of the year is chosen and of course, the top vote
getter overall is the player of the year. Each school submits one list which is
meant to be a representation of both that school's coach and sports information
director.
I'll make a 14/7 pair of lists like mentioned above and
I'll also throw in a few "just missed" athletes because honoring
players is good and I wish that the conference had an "honorable
mention" list. Below is a disclaimer section (this is important), my
lists, a statistical breakdown of "stat pros" and "stat
lows" and then my overall methodology for full transparency.
The "stat pros/lows" is something that I
started while doing this in the WAC because when people would ask me why I made
certain choices I was almost always answering those questions with something
from this section. So, I decided to start publishing those statistical rankings
to aid people by getting in my head about these things.
As the folks here at SFA can testify, I keep spreadsheets
of data on every starting player in the conference on my laptop that I use
while I call matches. Those spreadsheets include statistical rankings for every
key player in the conference and how they compare to other players at their
respective positions.
Disclaimer Section!
(Yes, I need this. My history in the Southland dictates
this is necessary) This post was published BEFORE the official All-SLC teams
were announced by the conference. I do this independently and DO NOT discuss my
picks with coaches or representatives from the institutions beforehand
(including SFA!!). Believe it or not, but years ago I got accused once or twice
of actually influencing the voters because I would publish the lists before the
coaches turned their rankings in. I found that claim absurd but started
publishing the list the day or two before the league announced the real winners
so that the voting would be over or ending. This list was published right
before Noon on Tuesday, November 18. The schools had to submit their lists at
Noon on that day.
I have called on ESPN+ or on radio a match involving
every team in the league, some multiple time. I have personally called and/or
watched each team in the league play entire matches multiple times. Based on
what I do for a living, statistical analysis weighs HEAVY in making my picks. But
I've been calling collegiate volleyball for a dozen years now and so the
"eyeball" test is in here too. But just know.. numbers/stats are what
will always drive me.
2025 SFA VolleyBlog 1st Team All-SLC (14 players)
Isabella Costantini, UTRGV (S, JR) [Player of the
Year]
Kyra McKelvey, Southeastern La. (RS, JR)
Maja Malinowska,
Lamar (OH, SO)
Dimitra Nanou, UTRGV (OH, FR) [Freshman of the Year]
India Bennett, Southeastern La. (MB, SR)
Katherine Holtman, SFA (RS, SO)
Martina Franco, UTRGV (OH, SO) [Newcomer of the Year]
Virginia Van Der Werff, AMCC (S, SO)
Calissa Allison, UIW (S/RS, SO)
Tamara
Chavez, Nicholls (OH, GR)
Camryn Hill, SFA (OH, SR)
Jayden Flynn, SFA (S, SR)
Brooklyn Jaeger, AMCC (L, SO) [Libero of the Year]
Jordan Henderson, SFA (MB, SO)
Stat Pros:
Costantini: 1st in a/s, 1st in ace/s,
1st in b/s for S, 2nd in assists, 3rd in k for
S, 5-1 setter on co-champion team, 3X SOW
McKelvey: 1st in k/s and kills for RS, Led SLC
in att%, 3rd in blocks for RS, 4th in SLC in k/s, 5th
in SLC for pts/s
Malinowska: 1st in kill and dig/s for OH, 2nd
in k/s in SLC, 2nd in aces for OH, 6th in blocks for OH, 2nd
in SLC in pts/s
Nanou: 1st in att% and aces for OH, 5th
in k/s and K for OH
Bennett: 1st in b/s and blocks for MB, 2nd
in k/s for MB, 4th in K, 6th in att% for MB, 3X Defensive
POW
Holtman: 4th in k, k/s and blocks for RS, 5th
in k/s
Franco: 2nd in att% for OH, 4th in
k/s for OH, top 10 among OH in k/s, k, att%, bl, d/s and aces, 4th
in aces/s in SLC
Van Der Werff: 2nd in a/s, 1st in assists,
2nd in k for S, 5th in aces/set in SLC, 5X SOW
Allison: 5th in a/s, unique as S/RS, 1st
in K for S, 1st in d/s for S/RS
Chavez: 1st in k/s, 2nd in K for
OH, 4th in att% for OH, Led SLC in k/s and pts/s
Hill: 5th in att% for OH, 2nd in
d/s for OH, 3rd in blocks for OH, 4th in aces for OH
Flynn: 1st in a/s for pure 6-2 S, primary S on
co-champion team
Jaeger: 2nd in d/s, 3rd in dig,
T2nd for aces for L
Henderson: 3rd in b/s in SLC, 4th in
blocks and 7th in att% for MB.
Stat Lows:
Malinowska: 14th in att% for OH
Nanou: 18th in blocks for OH
Hill: 16th in k/s for OH
2025 SFA VolleyBlog 2nd Team All-SLC (7 players)
Julianna Bryant, UTRGV (MB, JR)
Alexis Logarbo, Southeastern La (RS, SR)
Aaliyah Snead, UTRGV (MB, JR)
Jade Washington, ETAMU (L, FR)
Kade Thomas, UIW (MB, SR)
Taisha
Rhone, Lamar (Pin, JR)
Kyanna Creecy, SFA (MB, JR)
Stat Pros:
Bryant: 5th in bl/s and blocks in SLC
Logarbo: 1st in blocks for RS, 5th in
att% in SLC
Snead: 4th in att% for MB, 6th in
block for MB
Washington: Led SLC in d/s, 2nd in SLC in digs
Thomas: 4th in att% in SLC, 7th in
b/s for MB
Rhone: Top 10 among pins in all of k/s, att% and blocks
Creecy: 2nd in b/s in SLC and 3rd
in blocks
Stat Lows:
Thomas: 14th in k/s for MB
Creecy: 21st in k/s for MB, 17th in
K
Coach of the Year: Ariel Apolinario, Lamar
The following were under consideration for the final
spots: OH: Gracie Campbell, ETAMU
and Finley Evans, UIW. MB: Vanessa Eregie, UIW, Allana Archie, HCU and Daniella
Udegbunam, Lamar. S: Peyton Fadal, HCU. L: Celianiz Cabranes, UTRGV and Gabby
Baker, Lamar.
Quick Thoughts:
Many of the dominant scorers in the conference this year
were on teams that were not among the top seeds in the SLC Tournament. So, this
is a fantastic opportunity to recognize the setters among those top teams. This
is the main reason I went with Costantini as Player of the Year. UTRGV has many
talented players, but without Constantini I don’t think they are 15-1. SFA
tends to spread offense around more and so I don’t think they will have the
player of the year, but it is time to honor 6-2 setters more and this is why I
elevated Flynn to the first team. I think Flynn, Hill and Holtman are really
the combination that made SFA go. Although, the more I looked at the numbers,
the more I realized SFA’s middle are underrated and deserve the merit here. Originally,
I wasn’t so sure how high Henderson would rank, but her performance when
compared to the conference middles stands up.
I really wouldn’t have a problem with McKelvey winning
player of the year. She is truly one of my favorite players to watch and that
run of items on her “Stat Pros” above is completely convincing.
Mark it down because you heard it here first: The “X Factor” for the SLC Tourney later this
week: Martina Franco of UTRGV.
How good is India Bennett? Those numbers are just
ridiculous. Such an easy 1st Team pick.
One player on 1st Team and one player on 2nd
team whose numbers really surprised me when I started my analysis and kind off
flew under my radar during the season:
Dimitra Nanou of UTRGV and Taisha Rhone of Lamar.
I won’t get into why certain individuals players were
left off or why those listed as just under consideration didn’t make my teams. But
the general concept is one-dimensionality in categories versus being near the
top in several statistical categories.
Now, just for fun:
My favorite player to watch on all the non-SFA teams:
UTRGV: Nadine Zech,
OH
AMCC: Brooklyn
Jaeger, L
Southeastern La:
Kyra McKelvey, RS
Lamar: Alexa Gonzalez, S
UIW: Calissa Allison, S
HCU: Peyton Fadal,
S
ETAMU: Gracie
Campbell, OH
McNeese: Mary-Alice Dohmann, DS/OH
Nicholls: Isabella
Padilla, S
UNO: Defne Eciroglu,
S
Northwestern St: Jade Longlad, S
Finally, Methodology:
OH: 40% related to kill stats, 25% related to hitting
percentage/efficiency, 25% defense stats, 10% serving stats with adjustments
made for 6 vs. 3 rotation usage and observation
RS: 70% offense with half of that related to hitting
percentage/efficiency, 30% blocking with slight adjustments made for
observation
MB: 60% blocking metrics, 40% offense with half of that
related to hitting percentage/efficiency with slight adjustments made for
observation
S: assist metrics as they relate to 5-1 vs. 6-2 usage,
serving, slight consideration of dig/set, significant adjustments for
observation, no fixed percentage breakdown like OH, RS, MB
L: dig/set, serving, significant adjustments for
observation, no fixed percentage breakdown like OH, RS, MB.
"Observation" includes all of the
following: notes taken while calling matches, conversations with coaches
during year, appearance of leadership and demeanor while on court and on bench
while watching/calling matches, decision making, interactions with teammates. All
of these things are considered but would not move a particular player up or
down more than one or two "slots" within position based on objective
statistical measures.
