PHI

2025-26 Season

DOMINICK BARLOW

Philadelphia 76ers | Forward | 6-9
Dominick Barlow
7.9 PPG
4.8 RPG
1.3 APG
23.9 MPG
+0.6 Impact

Barlow produces at an average rate for a 24-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.6
Scoring +5.3
Points 7.9 PPG × +1.00 = +7.9
Missed 2PT 1.7/g × -0.78 = -1.3
Missed 3PT 0.9/g × -0.87 = -0.8
Missed FT 0.5/g × -1.00 = -0.5
Creation +2.2
Assists 1.3/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 1.2/g × +1.26 = +1.5
Turnovers -1.6
Turnovers 0.8/g × -1.95 = -1.6
Defense +1.6
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.7/g × +0.90 = +0.6
Def. Rebounds 3.6/g × +0.30 = +1.1
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.2
Contested Shots 7.0/g × +0.20 = +1.4
Deflections 1.7/g × +0.65 = +1.1
Loose Balls 0.6/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.8/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.1
Net Impact
+0.6
57th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 42th
8.0 PPG
Efficiency 74th
60.3% TS
Playmaking 35th
1.3 APG
Rebounding 60th
4.8 RPG
Rim Protection 61th
0.15/min
Hustle 76th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 83th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Dominick Barlow spent his first 20 games oscillating between a highly efficient interior glue-guy and an invisible offensive liability. On 11/20 vs MIL, he scored a mere 2 points but still posted a +2.7 impact score by embracing the dirty work, setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless defensive rotations. He generated massive value without scoring again on 12/04 vs GSW. Despite tallying just 6 points, he pulled down 14 rebounds to drive a stellar +6.8 impact through phenomenal rim protection and defensive switchability. Conversely, his outing on 11/23 vs MIA exposed the hidden costs of poor shot selection. Even though he scored 9 points, he finished with a -1.1 impact because he strayed from his hyper-efficient interior diet to hoist low-percentage perimeter shots. To survive in this league, Barlow must realize his true worth lies in relentless hustle rather than trying to stretch his offensive boundaries.

Dominick Barlow’s midseason stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between hyper-efficient interior finishing and frustrating bouts of sheer passivity. When he actually engaged, his value extended far beyond the scoring column. Take the 01/16 vs CLE matchup, where he attempted just three shots for 2 points but still posted a +6.5 impact score because his elite defensive positioning completely wrecked the opposition's offensive flow. Yet, that exact same low-volume approach often dragged him into the red. During the 01/31 vs NOP contest, a severe lack of overall involvement neutralized his otherwise decent defensive metrics, resulting in a -1.0 impact mark. Then came the sudden eruption. Barlow utterly dominated the paint on 02/02 vs LAC, exploding for 26 points and 16 rebounds to generate a staggering +28.8 impact score. If he stops floating on the perimeter and consistently attacks the rim with that kind of aggression, he transforms from a fringe rotation big into a genuine force.

This stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Dominick Barlow fluctuated wildly between high-motor defensive anchor and complete offensive ghost. His sheer invisibility with the ball reached a critical low on 02/24 vs IND, where he failed to attempt a single shot in 20 minutes and posted a disastrous -7.8 impact score. Even when he found the basket, hidden costs often ruined his floor value. On 02/26 vs MIA, Barlow shot a flawless 4-for-4 from the field for 9 points, yet suffered a -2.9 impact because severe defensive lapses completely overshadowed his perfect offensive conversion. He even managed to stay above water without scoring a single point on 03/23 vs OKC. During that contest, elite rim deterrence and switchability salvaged his blank offensive night, resulting in a +0.3 impact. If he wants to remain a reliable starter, he must eradicate the passive stretches that constantly drag down his overall effectiveness.

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 79% 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.

MATCHUP HISTORY

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

66
Games
7.9
PPG
4.8
RPG
1.3
APG
0.8
SPG
0.7
BPG
54.5
FG%
26.2
3P%
70.7
FT%
23.9
MPG

GAME LOG

66 games played