No doubt that Cabrera's accomplishment is historic, and I don't mean to slight him or the accomplishment in any way. BUT, why is that particular combination of league-leading statistics particularly indicative of his "value"? The best analysts in the game - and in front offices of MLB teams - don't look at those statistics as the best indicators of production and value.
I cited some advanced offensive metrics before, and while I agree with Three Bagger that most people will simply dismiss those statistics because they don't understand them, it is important to note that Trout's performance has been historic, too. If you look at the last fifty years, only 12 players have ever had better years in terms of purely offensive WAR (to placate those who dismiss WAR because of defensive stats - even though their own eyes should tell them that Trout is the FAR superior defensive player) than the 8.6 Trout produced this year (Cabrera had 7.5 offensive WAR). Those 12 are basically a Who's Who of players who are either in the Hall of Fame, or will or should be (at least if you ignore PED arguments about why they shouldn't): Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Yastrzemski, Morgan, Ripken, Walker, Piazza, McGwire, Jeter, Bonds, A-Rod.
Praise Cabrera for leading the league in batting average, RBIs, and home runs - it is a great accomplishment. But don't dismiss an equally great - in my eyes, even better - season by Trout because you don't like or don't understand the statistics that he lead the league in, particularly when every serious analyst will tell you that THOSE statistics are a better indicator of production and value.