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
5.7k Views
37 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.  

37 Comments
Discussion from...

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

4,379 Views | 37 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by BeachedBear
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)
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

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)

This "unknown" (defense) is bigger than the 3 point shooting question. Until we see our players play another team, it is basically impossible to predict. This is the area that can really affect our W/L record this year.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

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)

I'm sorry, Hoop. That is not how that works. 33% is substantially below average. 33% team average was good enough to rank #216 as a team last year, and your three point shooters should be better than average on your team. Cal's 31.5% ranked 293. Andrej and Wilkinson were poor 3pt shooters at 31.8% and 32.1%. Now, I would argue that would be serviceable with other stuff they bring to the table if 3 pt shooting is a secondary weapon for them. The problem is that they, along with Blacksher (34%) WERE our 3 pt shooting last year. And frankly, they are subpar shooters/scorers stats wise overall, both being below average and the fact that they had to take the lionshare of our shots explains why Cal ranked in the 300's in shooting percentage. If they were the third and fourth options and could be more selective, their shooting percentages no doubt would have risen. However, I think you are confusing being the best scorers on a team that couldn't score with being good scorers.

Further 50% is a good shooting percentage, but it is not a good 2PT SHOOTING PERCENTAGE, which is the proper comparison. 50% is only good if you include 3pt percentage in the number. 50% 2pt shooting from a team percentage standpoint gets you ranked 219 last year. Of course, guards should have lower 2pt percentage than big men.
HearstMining
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.

I think the biggest difference for guys like Cone, Blacksher, Wilkinson, etc, is the defenders they face. P4 players are, as a whole, taller, better athletes. Maybe Cone and Blacksher have 1/10 of a second less to get their shot off than he did playing at NAU and GCU respectively (or in Wilkinson's case, high school) because the defender is two inches taller and closes faster. Players feel pressure to change their shot - release it quicker or increase the arc and their accuracy and confidence suffer. It messes with their mind to the extent that they lose accuracy even on open shots.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Factor in that Ames and Bell are coming from P4 schools with their 3pt FG%s vs guys making a step up.

Lots of good statistical and other analysis on the HP board and a meaningful chat with a lot of news for Basketball last night for those that can afford the subscription.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are correct Sir!

BearlyCareAnymore said:

HoopDreams said:

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)

I'm sorry, Hoop. That is not how that works. 33% is substantially below average. 33% team average was good enough to rank #216 as a team last year, and your three point shooters should be better than average on your team. Cal's 31.5% ranked 293. Andrej and Wilkinson were poor 3pt shooters at 31.8% and 32.1%. Now, I would argue that would be serviceable with other stuff they bring to the table if 3 pt shooting is a secondary weapon for them. The problem is that they, along with Blacksher (34%) WERE our 3 pt shooting last year. And frankly, they are subpar shooters/scorers stats wise overall, both being below average and the fact that they had to take the lionshare of our shots explains why Cal ranked in the 300's in shooting percentage. If they were the third and fourth options and could be more selective, their shooting percentages no doubt would have risen. However, I think you are confusing being the best scorers on a team that couldn't score with being good scorers.

Further 50% is a good shooting percentage, but it is not a good 2PT SHOOTING PERCENTAGE, which is the proper comparison. 50% is only good if you include 3pt percentage in the number. 50% 2pt shooting from a team percentage standpoint gets you ranked 219 last year. Of course, guards should have lower 2pt percentage than big men.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

Factor in that Ames and Bell are coming from P4 schools with their 3pt FG%s vs guys making a step up.

Lots of good statistical and other analysis on the HP board and a meaningful chat with a lot of news for Basketball last night for those that can afford the subscription.


Agree. Someone like Ames isn't an all star, but he is solid and you know what you are getting.

Although, Bell shot 35% last year, not over 40%. He did shoot over 40% the year before, so he is capable of it.
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Camden at 41.6% is who I'm most excited about, only 25 shooters across the entire NCAA universe did better. I agree, 33% from 3 doesn't count as good, that would put you at 112th last year. We have to set our sights higher.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/stats/player/_/season/2025/table/offensive/sort/threePointFieldGoalPct/dir/desc

In general, teams that rely too much on one or two aces from beyond the arc are doomed. I'd rather use the threat of a Camden to open up the inside game than giving a green light for guys to jack up 15-20 attempts a game.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barsad said:

In general, teams that rely too much on one or two aces from beyond the arc are doomed. I'd rather use the threat of a Camden to open up the inside game than giving a green light for guys to jack up 15-20 attempts a game.

Last season our women's team had three or four 3-point shooters on the court together and were really hard to defend. They made the NCAA tournament.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barsad said:

Camden at 41.6% is who I'm most excited about, only 25 shooters across the entire NCAA universe did better. I agree, 33% from 3 doesn't count as good, that would put you at 112th last year. We have to set our sights higher.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/stats/player/_/season/2025/table/offensive/sort/threePointFieldGoalPct/dir/desc

In general, teams that rely too much on one or two aces from beyond the arc are doomed. I'd rather use the threat of a Camden to open up the inside game than giving a green light for guys to jack up 15-20 attempts a game.


He had a great year, but prior to that he didn't get much run in P4 so it is hard to know whether it was the step down or development. (Probably some of each)
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
BearlyCareAnymore said:

BearGreg said:

Factor in that Ames and Bell are coming from P4 schools with their 3pt FG%s vs guys making a step up.

Lots of good statistical and other analysis on the HP board and a meaningful chat with a lot of news for Basketball last night for those that can afford the subscription.


Agree. Someone like Ames isn't an all star, but he is solid and you know what you are getting.

Although, Bell shot 35% last year, not over 40%. He did shoot over 40% the year before, so he is capable of it.

He's a career 38% 3 point shooter.
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm just going by the numbers on ESPN's page on Camden, if you have a source with numbers you think are more accurate than ESPN's, please share.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4684155/john-camden
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
barsad said:

I'm just going by the numbers on ESPN's page on Camden, if you have a source with numbers you think are more accurate than ESPN's, please share.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4684155/john-camden

I was talking about Bell in the above post.

Camden's % is correct.

The best #'s are to be found on KenPom because they go to efficiency and what's called true FG %
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.
BC Calfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BC Calfan said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.

This is the same as my position. More specifically, I would like 1) better action off the ball, including screens, cuts, and spontaneous initiation of secondary actions when the first action fails, and 2) a zone defense that is focused on the taking away the 3 point shot. While Cal will not have the same ability to drive, the threat of multiple good 3 point shooters is something to be optimistic about. If they do not primarily play zone, I will be surprised if the results are much better.
smokeyrover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Madsen says that Associate Head Coach Adam Mazarei is the "offensive coordinator."



I wonder if another assistant has been tasked with the defense?
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last year, one of the main problems we had at the defensive end was our starting point guard. Let's hope this year that there isn't a player that will present the same problems. In addition to a better three point defense, we've got to do better on the top of the key ball screens against us. Last year we were a disaster defending those.
SFCityBear
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.


If we have any money left, get him signed ASAP.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

BC Calfan said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.

This is the same as my position. More specifically, I would like 1) better action off the ball, including screens, cuts, and spontaneous initiation of secondary actions when the first action fails, and 2) a zone defense that is focused on the taking away the 3 point shot. While Cal will not have the same ability to drive, the threat of multiple good 3 point shooters is something to be optimistic about. If they do not primarily play zone, I will be surprised if the results are much better.


Forgive me for being a little confused here, but you and others seem to be talking about offense and defense in the same sentences. For one thing, are you proposing that Cal play a perimeter zone defense focused against stopping the three point shooting of the opponent?

I hope I'm misinterpreting what is written, because as early as 70 years ago, good perimeter shooting enabled by great perimeter passing has been a very effective strategy to take apart zone defenses. If the shots start dropping, it is usually game over for the zone defense.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BC Calfan said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.

Part of why I have slightly more optimism is that the offensive talent seems more evenly spread among the roster. That said the offensive scheme the first two years seemed to lead to individual play more than the talents of the players. We could have had a free flowing offense with Andrej and Wilkinson. Each team has also had a guy who fans complained was basically chucking and neither guy was really a chucker on their past team.

This team does not appear to have the athletic firepower to out athlete many teams. I'm hoping that will lead us to stop running an offense that requires individuals win athletic matchups and favors more teamwork. If we try to win on individual matchups, we are going to have a rough time.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

sluggo said:

BC Calfan said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.

This is the same as my position. More specifically, I would like 1) better action off the ball, including screens, cuts, and spontaneous initiation of secondary actions when the first action fails, and 2) a zone defense that is focused on the taking away the 3 point shot. While Cal will not have the same ability to drive, the threat of multiple good 3 point shooters is something to be optimistic about. If they do not primarily play zone, I will be surprised if the results are much better.


Forgive me for being a little confused here, but you and others seem to be talking about offense and defense in the same sentences. For one thing, are you proposing that Cal play a perimeter zone defense focused against stopping the three point shooting of the opponent?

I hope I'm misinterpreting what is written, because as early as 70 years ago, good perimeter shooting enabled by great perimeter passing has been a very effective strategy to take apart zone defenses. If the shots start dropping, it is usually game over for the zone defense.

I talked about offense and defense in consecutive sentences, not in the same sentence.

Zone defense lets a team decide what to allow and what to take away. It is a common misconception, perhaps starting 70s years ago but up until today, that zones can be undone by perimeter shooting. It is not true. But I understand that there was an era when only the 2-3 zone defense was played, and in that defense, two perimeter defenders tried to defend three perimeter players, which does not work unless the perimeter players cannot shoot. But a 1-3-1 or 3-2 or even a 2-3 (which I hate) can take away perimeter shooting if enough defenders come out to the perimeter.

Some day most to all teams will play zone defense because it is superior. I hope I live long enough to see it. Note in the NBA zone is gaining more and more popularity, despite rules that try to disadvantage it. In college where there are no rules on defense zone should be primary, but most college coaches are incompetent compared to NBA coaches.

I will die on the hill of zone defense.

sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
smokeyrover said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Madsen says that Associate Head Coach Adam Mazarei is the "offensive coordinator."

I wonder if another assistant has been tasked with the defense?


Then perhaps Mazarei should be let go.
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You would think that Madsen would have a large input on Cal's half court offense, since he played his college ball under Montgomery. Some of that had to rub off.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
sluggo said:

SFCityBear said:

sluggo said:

BC Calfan said:

RedlessWardrobe said:

Without the two "go to" guys from last year, we will be able to evaluate MM's ability to create an offense that will provide us with better looks for the three. Of course, as usual, with almost a whole new group it will most likely take a few games, but honestly MM, let's see what you can do. We know that Camden can shoot, but does he have an inside game that might lead to some kickouts and better three point opportunities? Only time will tell.

Exactly. Everyone is focusing on talent level with their season predictions. With Madsen's teams so far, they appear to perform at a "less than the sum of it's parts" fashion. Can he maximize this team's potential? Two things I want to see 1) without Stoja and Wilkinson, we should have a more free flowing offense. How will that look? 2) Defensively, can we defend the 3 ball? If we are effective in both those facets, we will be in good shape.

This is the same as my position. More specifically, I would like 1) better action off the ball, including screens, cuts, and spontaneous initiation of secondary actions when the first action fails, and 2) a zone defense that is focused on the taking away the 3 point shot. While Cal will not have the same ability to drive, the threat of multiple good 3 point shooters is something to be optimistic about. If they do not primarily play zone, I will be surprised if the results are much better.


Forgive me for being a little confused here, but you and others seem to be talking about offense and defense in the same sentences. For one thing, are you proposing that Cal play a perimeter zone defense focused against stopping the three point shooting of the opponent?

I hope I'm misinterpreting what is written, because as early as 70 years ago, good perimeter shooting enabled by great perimeter passing has been a very effective strategy to take apart zone defenses. If the shots start dropping, it is usually game over for the zone defense.

I talked about offense and defense in consecutive sentences, not in the same sentence.

Zone defense lets a team decide what to allow and what to take away. It is a common misconception, perhaps starting 70s years ago but up until today, that zones can be undone by perimeter shooting. It is not true. But I understand that there was an era when only the 2-3 zone defense was played, and in that defense, two perimeter defenders tried to defend three perimeter players, which does not work unless the perimeter players cannot shoot. But a 1-3-1 or 3-2 or even a 2-3 (which I hate) can take away perimeter shooting if enough defenders come out to the perimeter.

Some day most to all teams will play zone defense because it is superior. I hope I live long enough to see it. Note in the NBA zone is gaining more and more popularity, despite rules that try to disadvantage it. In college where there are no rules on defense zone should be primary, but most college coaches are incompetent compared to NBA coaches.

I will die on the hill of zone defense.



Zone Defense Popularity in the NBA
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.