Interesting, but I have a general aversion to any formula that tries to determine the MVP. There are way too many things that can't be measured.
How many injuries to the MVP candidate's team? How has the MVP candidate performed in clutch situations? How many times has a candidate had to, single-handidly, drag his team to a win? (I think you know who I am talking about, here)
These formulas can't possibly measure such things. You have to actually watch the games to see these kinds of remarkable performances on extremely undermanned teams... which brings me to another problem I have with the MVP vote...
How many times have these voters actually seen the candidates play? When they are on national television? Maybe a few more times? Maybe a few less times?
To me, in order to evaluate a player, you need to go beyond the records or statistics and actually WATCH the players. That is how you determine who the best or most valuable players are.
I think there should be a panel of 10 voters (find 10 as unbiased as possible). Have the 'media' vote on the top 3. Then, the 10 respected voters have to watch all 82 games of a candidates team (including those in which he may have been injured).
That is the only way that we are going to get a true MVP. Since I don't see this happening, we will continue to have MVPs based, on large part, to team record and not much else... a terrible barometer for the true most valuable player, imo.
For the record, I am nominating myself as one of the final 10 who will watch all 82 games of each of the 3 nominees. I will be fair and balanced. :)