[mb625]

The BIGGEST thing needed in my opinion is more realistic ratings on cards as well as cards that feel like they represent the player at the time the card represents rather than just being a more juiced version of the player. Each player should have unique strengths and weaknesses based on the time period of their card. An older Jordan would be better than a younger one in a lot of ways, but the younger version would be more athletic. So a diamond Jordan might be less athletic than the amethyst, but the diamond would be a superior shooter, post scorer and all around craftier player.
As for more realistic card ratings, the centers of yesterday need to lack a three pointer, but there needs to be an advantage to running them. I don't completely know how to go about this, but the five-out needs to die somehow. Certainly, there are a lot of fine shooting big men right now, but only two of the big names truly deserve a three-point rating above 90: Towns and Horford. There are a handful of others who would probably deserve that rating too, but most of them are lesser names that no one is running anyway. I based that on players shooting north of 40% from three. Anyone below that should start dipping into the 80s. This would be guys like Olynyk, Speights, Kaminsky and even Jokic (who is close to 40.). There is NO WAY that there should be a Joel Embiid card with 90 open 3 when his high 3 point mark is 36.7% in a season with small sample size and has regressed to what seems to be his mean this season. This would help players like Olajuwon to be viable even without a horribly unrealistic 89 three point shot. Manute Bol, who had a high-water mark of 31% from three and a career percentage closer to 21%, has a card with an 87 open three. Ewing has an 85, and that is just the top 30 three point shooting centers in the game. That's right... Patrick Ewing has the 30th best three pointer in the game for centers.* That NEEDS to change. When it does, the 5-out garbage will die right with it.