you didn't read the rest of my post, obviously.
RBI are primarily a result of opportunity.
Is BA a better measure than hits? Sure, but percentage of runners driven in is better than pure RBI. You can accumulate a lot of RBI simply by having a lot of runners on base in front of you. Have fun driving in tons of runs when you're leading off.
And OBP is more important than either one. So Cabrera was not the best in the AL at driving runners in, and he was not the best in getting on base. He was also a terrible baserunner and a poor fielder.
I mentioned hits because two of the categories are cumulative stats (homers and rbi), so it would follow that the third should be as well. Of course, to argue BA/HR/RBI are the three most important stats is completely nonsensical to begin with.
By the way, Trout also scored more runs than Cabrera, and I don't see how RBI is more important than runs scored.