Reading over the methodology, it seems like this heavily favors players who played on good teams while being substantially better than most of their teammates. That's not a terrible angle in and of itself - the HOF is an individual award, and a player excelling in spite of a lower-caliber roster around him is meaningful in that regard.
But it leaves out a huge additional factor - under this system, guys who legitimately make their teammates better (like Bird, Russell and Magic) are going to get buried by this system. Even guys who are just "unlucky" enough to be major parts of awesome squads are underrated. Whereas guys who put up big numbers on top-heavy teams (like Jordan's title teams) get heavily overrated. Plus it appears to completely leave out playoff performance, which is a pretty unforgivable omission.
It's like any other analytic - it's a different angle, it can be interesting to discuss, but it's making a terrible case for being better than the current selection process.