PHI

2025-26 Season

DOMINICK BARLOW

Philadelphia 76ers | Forward | 6-9
Dominick Barlow
7.1PPG
4.4RPG
1.1APG
22.1MPG
-0.8 Impact

Barlow produces at an average rate for a 22-minute workload.

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.8
Scoring +6.0
Points Scored 7.1 PPG = +7.1
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.1
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.0
Creation +0.6
Assists & Self-Creation 1.1 AST/g + self-creation = +0.6
Turnovers -1.7
Turnovers 0.7/g (live + dead blend) = -1.7
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.8/g = +1.8
Blocks 0.7/g = +0.6
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.2
Hustle & Effort +4.4
Rebounds 4.4 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.9
Contested Shots 5.7/g = +1.1
Deflections 1.4/g = +0.9
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.5/g = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.7/g = +0.2
Raw Impact +9.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.3
Net Impact
-0.8
49th pctl vs Forwards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 37th
7.3 PPG
Efficiency 75th
59.8% TS
Playmaking 25th
1.1 APG
Rebounding 56th
4.5 RPG
Defense 56th
+7.6/g
Hustle 92th
+19.4/g
Creation 69th
+3.07/g
Shot Making 23th
+3.95/g
TO Discipline 82th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Dominick Barlow’s first 24 games of the season were defined by wild fluctuations in utility, oscillating between vital glue guy and complete non-factor. His true value often emerged on nights when he barely looked at the rim. During his gritty performance on 12/05 vs GSW, Barlow scored just six points but generated a massive +10.8 Impact score by vacuuming up 14 rebounds and keeping the offense moving. But when his motor idled, he became a severe liability. Take his brutal outing on 01/04 vs NYK, where a passive approach yielded just two rebounds and zero assists, resulting in a staggering -13.8 Impact score that torpedoed the starting unit. He occasionally found his offensive rhythm, erupting for 21 points on 9-of-13 shooting on 12/21 vs DAL to post a stellar +13.4 Impact score. Barlow clearly possesses the raw physical tools to be a starting-caliber forward, but until he brings relentless energy every single night, he remains a frustratingly volatile asset.

Dominick Barlow’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating between complete invisibility and flashes of pure frontcourt dominance. Everything clicked on 02/02 vs LAC, where he bullied his way to 26 points and 16 rebounds for a staggering +40.4 Impact score. That monstrous rating stemmed from relentless glass-cleaning and highly efficient interior finishing, overwhelming the defense through sheer physical force. Yet, he completely vanished on 02/24 vs IND. Logging 20 minutes without attempting a single field goal, he posted a brutal -11.6 Impact score because his absolute refusal to look at the rim bogged down the entire offense. Even when he scored with perfect efficiency, his lack of peripheral engagement dragged him down, as seen on 02/26 vs MIA. Despite shooting a flawless 4-for-4 from the floor, he registered a -2.1 Impact score because grabbing a measly two rebounds in 31 minutes of action is unacceptable for a starting big man. Barlow must eradicate these passive nights before he loses his starting job entirely.

Dominick Barlow’s late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, bouncing between highly effective hustle play and complete offensive invisibility before finally losing his starting job. On 03/01 vs BOS, he looked like a legitimate rotation big, dropping 14 points and 8 rebounds for a massive +12.2 Impact score. He earned that elite mark by attacking the glass and converting efficiently around the rim. Yet, those flashes of brilliance vanished completely on 03/03 vs SAS. He sleepwalked through 13 minutes, missing all four of his field goal attempts and grabbing zero rebounds, which tanked his Impact score to a brutal -12.5. Still, even when his scoring dried up, he occasionally found ways to tilt the floor. During the 04/03 vs MIN matchup, Barlow managed just 7 points but ripped down 10 rebounds, generating a +7.6 Impact score entirely through relentless interior physicality and defensive rebounding. Unfortunately, those gritty performances were too rare to save his starting role.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Barlow's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~5 points per game.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 74% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

Defensive difference-maker. Barlow consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Performance has dropped off. First-half impact: +1.2, second-half: -2.7. Worth watching whether it's fatigue, injury, or opponents adjusting.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 65 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

J. Johnson 142.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 10
M. Bridges 63.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
S. Barnes 55.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7
P. Siakam 53.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
J. Collins 45.2 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 9
J. Hart 44.0 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
L. James 43.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
C. Flagg 43.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
J. Champagnie 42.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
J. Randle 40.2 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

J. Johnson 117.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.22
PTS 26
P. Siakam 63.5 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
S. Barnes 61.2 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 12
M. Bridges 51.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 8
C. Flagg 47.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
J. Brown 47.4 poss
FG% 70.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.38
PTS 18
Z. Williamson 47.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
J. Randle 42.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
J. Collins 42.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
P. Achiuwa 39.1 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 10

SEASON STATS

81
Games
7.1
PPG
4.4
RPG
1.1
APG
0.8
SPG
0.7
BPG
53.9
FG%
24.7
3P%
72.5
FT%
22.1
MPG

GAME LOG

81 games played