Kudos to Elrod for putting a ton of time into his article and analysis (was "nadir" the word you were looking for? It means low point.) However, I'm not sure that he told us anything that we didn't already know: teams generally need superstars to win, and if they don't have a superstar, they need multiple "really good" types of players.
In terms of methodology, I guess somebody could quibble with using MVP votes as a sign of who the best players are. For many voters, MVP votes are inexplicably tied to winning. MVP candidates generally come from very good teams, and thus, it should be no surprise that those very good teams win championships.