Cal Basketball

Cal Basketball in 2025-26 - Chemistry, Defense and Shooting

A revamped roster, a lot of depth and a very different look and feel will greet fans of the Bear Cagers this season. There's a lot to like as well as some real questions.
October 28, 2025
1.5k Views
11 Comments
Story Poster
Photo by Cal Athletics

Overall:

This is an almost entirely new team with only three key rotation players returning and perhaps only one of them a sure fire starter.   The program welcomes nine transfers and two new high school recruits, and loses their dynamic duo from the 2024-25 season Andrej Stojakovic‍ and Jeremiah Wilkinson‍ as they move on to Illinois and Georgia respectively.

So with all the new faces, what is to be expected?   The roster building was focused on building better team chemistry, creating a team that was unselfish and shared the ball.  Coach Madsen wants a team that can shoot the ball at a high clip from the perimeter and one that is willing to play defense at a consistently high level.

The Roster:

With that criteria in mind, he added a slew of shooters, specifically former Syracuse sharp shooter Chris Bell‍ and Delaware transfer John Camden‍, both of whom boast great length at 6’8 and smooth strokes.   Both players shot well over 40% from three last year and should be the focal point of the offense.

Improving the teams passing and unselfishness led Madsen to add two guards with plus vision and handles in Justin Pippen‍‍ and Dai Dai Ames‍.  Ames posted solid numbers for Virginia last year and is a crafty, clever penetrator with a solid shot and willingness to pass.  Pippen is younger and less proven but has really good length to pair with a good looking jump shot, a high basketball IQ and a smooth handle.  He should be the teams best passer and primary point guard.

Those four transfers may well be starters alongside returning big man Lee Dort‍.  Dort has NBA size and athleticism and was among the nation’s leaders in post defense and rebounding according to KenPom’s advanced metrics.  Lee struggled to avoid foul trouble and at least last season was not a real threat to score.   He’s sculpted his body and should be ready to shoulder a bigger minutes load this season.  If he can stay on the floor, at a minimum he’s an elite rebounder (particularly on the offensive glass) and a plus post defender.

Rytis Petraitis‍ returns as the teams swiss army knife and is finally healthy after offseason shoulder surgery.   His energy, basketball IQ and versatility as a rebounder and passer is going to ensure he plays a lot of minute even if it’s as the Bears sixth man.   DJ Campbell‍ will likely join him off the bench and the fearless “power” guard is another energizer bunny who will need to see his offensive efficiency improve if he wants to earn more playing time.  

Milos Ilic‍ brings a very solid resume as a post player from Loyola Maryland and will be the Bears primary back up in the post.  He’s a wide body with very good feet and a deft touch.  Milos isn’t the longest or most athletic big man so it will be interesting to see how he adjusts to playing in the ACC

Nolan Dorsey‍ is a twenty four year old grad transfer who was the Defensive Player of the Year in the Colonial Athletic Association last year as a long and strong wing.  The amateur MMA fighter will provide toughness and high energy off the bench for the Bears.

Both Freshman will get a chance to earn a spot in what’s likely to be a big rotation (somewhere in the 9-10 player range).  Semetri Carr‍ is an undersized point guard whose built out his body and plays with real presence and poise.  He can hit the open three and brings a solid handle to the team.  Jovani Ruff‍ was a highly touted recruit and he has what for this team is a premium skill which is the ability to create his own shot.  Ruff has broad shoulders and can really rise off the floor to make mid range and fadeaway jumpers with ease.  His shot is unorthodox and could be a challenge when he’s shooting beyond the arc.  For both of the Freshman, playing smart defense and showing they understand the offense will be critical for them to see the court.

Cal added three other young big men with Sammie Yeanay‍ having the most upside but also an injury issue that likely keeps him out for most of this season.  Mantas Kocanas has good length and movement skills but could use some time in the weight room and to mature his overall game.  Dhiaukuei Manuel Dut‍ is nearly 7 feet tall and he has a soft touch and can block shots.  He’s more slight particularly below the waist and may struggle against stronger post players.

Offense:  

Look for this team to change things up from last year and play a style that’s built around Cal’s hoped for improvements in shooting and passing.   Given the likely challenges of this years Bear team creating off the bounce, a premium will be placed on freeing up three point shooters, finding points in transition and winning on the glass to get more shot attempts.  This team looks built to avoid turnovers and reward cutters with more effective passes.

Defense:

This is the area of the program that needs to take the biggest step forward.  The roster is better built in this regard with the three returners boasting some of the team’s best advanced defensive metrics  from last season (Particulalry Dort and Petraitis) and Bell, Dorsey, and Pippen bringing reputations as strong defenders to the squad.   Madsen has made defense the offseason priority and it’s not hard to imagine a very different approach in how the teams plays along with the team playing with a renewed effort and intensity on this end of the floor.

Areas of Strength:

  • Outside Shooting
  • Ball Handling
  • Improved Chemistry
  • Improved Defense
  • Depth

Question Marks:

  • Shot Creation on Offense?
  • Post Depth?
  • Sufficient Athleticism for the ACC?
  • Will the Defense Improve Enough?

The Schedule:

The non conference slate is set up to give the team confidence and to get some notches in the win column.  The Bears are only obvious underdogs against UCLA and Kansas State before they enter ACC play.  Conference play will be challenging though Cal does get some of their likely tougher opponents at home (e.g. Louisville, Duke, North Carolina, and Pitt)

Prediction:

There’s little scarier than predicting College Basketball in this day and age given that most teams turn over more than two-thirds of their rosters from the previous season.  That said, this is a group that should post a strong non-conference record and with only a modicum of success in the ACC could qualify for some sort of postseason invitation.  The ceiling does not appear to be high with this group and it’s hard to imagine more than 15-17 wins.   If the injury bug hits (particularly with Dort or Pippen), the above may prove to be optimistic.  

11 Comments
Discussion from...

Cal Basketball in 2025-26 - Chemistry, Defense and Shooting

924 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by HoopDreams
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good write up. Makes em sound good! Hope they are.
oskithepimp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we're gonna suck again? It's amazingly sad how far we've fallen since 2016.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskithepimp said:

So we're gonna suck again? It's amazingly sad how far we've fallen since 2016.

And amazingly good how far we've risen since 2022.
HKBear97!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure I understand the prediction - hard to imagine more than 15-17 wins, yet "should post a strong-non-conference record and with only a modicum of success in the ACC could qualify for some sort of postseason invitation'? 15-17 wins might be a stretch for even the CBI. With this lineup, there's actually a possibility they may not qualify for the ACC end-of-season tournament.

Will be an interesting team to watch. No obvious go-to players like Tyson and Aimaq in year one and Stojakovic and Wilkinson in year two, so if this staff can actually coach an offensive system, this is the year to prove it. As for defense, that hasn't exactly been great either, so we'll see. Honestly, I would be impressed if they exceed 14 wins.
HearstMining
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

Not sure I understand the prediction - hard to imagine more than 15-17 wins, yet "should post a strong-non-conference record and with only a modicum of success in the ACC could qualify for some sort of postseason invitation'? 15-17 wins might be a stretch for even the CBI. With this lineup, there's actually a possibility they may not qualify for the ACC end-of-season tournament.

Will be an interesting team to watch. No obvious go-to players like Tyson and Aimaq in year one and Stojakovic and Wilkinson in year two, so if this staff can actually coach an offensive system, this is the year to prove it. As for defense, that hasn't exactly been great either, so we'll see. Honestly, I would be impressed if they exceed 14 wins.

Wikinson wasn't an obvious go-to guy at the beginning of the season, so there may be a similar surprise this year.

Hey, I'm grasping at straws, here!
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HKBear97! said:

Not sure I understand the prediction - hard to imagine more than 15-17 wins, yet "should post a strong-non-conference record and with only a modicum of success in the ACC could qualify for some sort of postseason invitation'? 15-17 wins might be a stretch for even the CBI. With this lineup, there's actually a possibility they may not qualify for the ACC end-of-season tournament.

Will be an interesting team to watch. No obvious go-to players like Tyson and Aimaq in year one and Stojakovic and Wilkinson in year two, so if this staff can actually coach an offensive system, this is the year to prove it. As for defense, that hasn't exactly been great either, so we'll see. Honestly, I would be impressed if they exceed 14 wins.

My extremely gut reaction is we will be a tiny bit better than last year. My head says we will be a little bit worse. Honestly, I think my gut is about at the ceiling and the floor is significantly below.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyCareAnymore said:

My extremely gut reaction is we will be a tiny bit better than last year. My head says we will be a little bit worse. Honestly, I think my gut is about at the ceiling and the floor is significantly below.
You must have very long legs.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is very difficult to evaluate and make predictions when no one but the coaches and those invited to practices have even an idea of how the team may play when they play an opponent.

The general idea for any team would be to try and improve shooting, teamwork, and defense, and maybe rebounding. With only what, 3 players coming back, we know very little.

I'd be hesitant to predict improvement in outside shooting. Players who shot well playing for other schools, does not mean they will shoot well in Haas. Like horse racing, baseball, and golf, at least, there are "horses for courses", and basketball is no different. It was only a year ago, that Mark Madsen was raving about how much better our three point shooting was going be in 2024-25. He said we might even be able to have a starting rotation of all five players shooting 40% or better on 3-pointers.

Well, it didn't happen. Three starters took most of the 3-point shots, Stojakovic 4.4 shots per game, shooting .318, Wilkinson 5.8 shots at .321, and Blaksher, 5.6 shots at .340. All a little below average shooting.

You need a good system and a good plan to free up shooters to shoot from the spots on the floor which they like best, and feel most confidence shooting from. Madsen's first year was unsuccessful in part because the player he had who had the most ability to see the floor, and find open players, happened to also be the player who had the best chance to score a basket. Tyson had to be sort of a point forward, and the only player around here I ever saw who was great at that was Rick Barry, and Tyson was not Rick Barry. I questioned at the time why Cone was getting 8.7 three point shot attempts per game to Tyson's 4.5? or even Celestine's 4.0 three point attempts, when both were better shooters than Cone.

Finally, the three point shot is a low percentage shot, with less chance of going in the basket than shots from closer range. The long range shot has little margin for error, whereas the shot from closer in can be a little off line, or the arc be a little off, and it still has a good chance of going into the basket. Not only that, but individual players and whole teams can go into a slump, where they miss open shot after shot in a game for a week or more, and there is no logical explanation for it. I remember transfer Ryan Betley having a decent season comparable to his stats at Penn, only to go into a long, long slump to end the season. Fox blamed himself for the slump, saying he had pushed the player too hard. It could be that, or it could have been the pressure of the PAC12 games. My point is that I don't agree with too much focus on 3-point shooting, making that a focus of your offense. Because the odds are not good, and the risk is higher. Just use the three to open up the higher percentage shots closer in. Start scoring inside, and it opens up open looks at three point shots.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

My extremely gut reaction is we will be a tiny bit better than last year. My head says we will be a little bit worse. Honestly, I think my gut is about at the ceiling and the floor is significantly below.

You must have very long legs.


LOL. I knew someone was going to do that. I almost made a joke to pre-empt that.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

It is very difficult to evaluate and make predictions when no one but the coaches and those invited to practices have even an idea of how the team may play when they play an opponent.

The general idea for any team would be to try and improve shooting, teamwork, and defense, and maybe rebounding. With only what, 3 players coming back, we know very little.

I'd be hesitant to predict improvement in outside shooting. Players who shot well playing for other schools, does not mean they will shoot well in Haas. Like horse racing, baseball, and golf, at least, there are "horses for courses", and basketball is no different. It was only a year ago, that Mark Madsen was raving about how much better our three point shooting was going be in 2024-25. He said we might even be able to have a starting rotation of all five players shooting 40% or better on 3-pointers.

Well, it didn't happen. Three starters took most of the 3-point shots, Stojakovic 4.4 shots per game, shooting .318, Wilkinson 5.8 shots at .321, and Blaksher, 5.6 shots at .340. All a little below average shooting.

You need a good system and a good plan to free up shooters to shoot from the spots on the floor which they like best, and feel most confidence shooting from. Madsen's first year was unsuccessful in part because the player he had who had the most ability to see the floor, and find open players, happened to also be the player who had the best chance to score a basket. Tyson had to be sort of a point forward, and the only player around here I ever saw who was great at that was Rick Barry, and Tyson was not Rick Barry. I questioned at the time why Cone was getting 8.7 three point shot attempts per game to Tyson's 4.5? or even Celestine's 4.0 three point attempts, when both were better shooters than Cone.

Finally, the three point shot is a low percentage shot, with less chance of going in the basket than shots from closer range. The long range shot has little margin for error, whereas the shot from closer in can be a little off line, or the arc be a little off, and it still has a good chance of going into the basket. Not only that, but individual players and whole teams can go into a slump, where they miss open shot after shot in a game for a week or more, and there is no logical explanation for it. I remember transfer Ryan Betley having a decent season comparable to his stats at Penn, only to go into a long, long slump to end the season. Fox blamed himself for the slump, saying he had pushed the player too hard. It could be that, or it could have been the pressure of the PAC12 games. My point is that I don't agree with too much focus on 3-point shooting, making that a focus of your offense. Because the odds are not good, and the risk is higher. Just use the three to open up the higher percentage shots closer in. Start scoring inside, and it opens up open looks at three point shots.

For me, I know what coaches are, I know how past classes have been described, I know how this one is described, and I take a guess. And I know it is a complete guess. I would say I'm fairly confident in a certain range and that range does not include top third of conference. Hope I'm wrong.

On the three point shooting, I've discussed this before. A lot of fans look at our team with a lot of 30% 3pt shooters, and say "hey we got a bunch of transfers who are 40% 3pt shooters. We've improved". Except when you look at our 30% 3pt shooters, the year before they were transfers who were 40% 3pt shooters. System may impact but to a large extent it is stepping up a level. Some guys can do it and shoot the same. Many cannot. Almost all of our transfers have suffered a drop in 3pt shooting for us.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unless you're a center, shooting 33% from three is good (= 50% from the field which is good)

the 3 pointer can sometimes be the equalizer to play above your weight and hopefully upset a few teams. Andrej and Wilkinson (and Mady) gave us the firepower to give us that upside too.

but our formula last season was different ... get to the rack and score or get fouled, and offensive rebounds.

we need to dramatically improve on defense to have a successful season, and I'm not sure we have the same upside (unless it's true our 3 point shooting is greatly improved)
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.