Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

Stats are actually the biggest key to seeing who is the better player. By "better," I mean who is better at the game. Fans do matter, but it is actually a lesser play in who has the better ability to PLAY baseball. May I point out that the average statistical fan would see that argument as useless, as it is based against stats. From what I have seen (this is observation, not a cold-hard fact,) Mike Trout is beloved in far more places than Miguel Cabrera. Trout smiles more, draws more fans, and pleases more fans with his amazing skills and antics. Miguel Cabrera, however, goes out there and plays some hard, tough baseball and doesn't do much to please the fans besides hit homers. That is usually good, but now, it is used against you to nullify your own argument. Max Scherzer is irrelevant to this conversation. And if wins are useless, so are RBI. That just makes Trout all the better. Last year's MVP voting was heavily argued against by both sides. If you had read my opening statement, which is somewhat think you ignored, you would know that this argument was sparked by them being head to head in the MVP voting. 30 people think that Miguel Cabrera is better, mostly because of the triple crown. By your logic, since "wins" (influenced by the team's batting!) are useless, so are RBI (influenced ALSO by team's batting!) Therefore, Miguel Cabrera only won the triple crown because his team was amazing at batting. Who knows what Mike Trout would've done if he had the people around him like Miguel Cabrera. I have also noticed your reliability on career, as seen in your first and second argument. Therefore, you have influenced me to show you why Trout, compared to Miguel Cabrera's career, may be a bit better. Trout, in his first two seasons, hasn't tried to smack the ball to high heavens like some other players do. He has a fluid, line-drive swing, yet he still managed to have a homer rate of 0.05 through his first two seasons... the same as Cabrera's 0.05 through his two first seasons [1]. I said right now, not career, so I'm going to spare you from these obvious facts and move on to current ones. Fans: There is not a steady way to measure who has more fans. So for this argument, Baseball is a spectator sport. It is a sport where the fans and the people who bring the information to the fans decide who is best, I use... Twitter to determine who has more fans. Trout: 376,285 followers (as of WED, Nov. 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM) [2] Cabrera: 322,995 followers (as of WED, Nov. 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM) [3] These followers are fans and players alike. We are constantly seeing stories about athletes and Twitter related incidents. That is why I turned to this rather unusual site. It may not be as validated as ESPN.com, but it still (at least semi) proves my point. We also go to bleacherreport.com [1], where we both seem to garner info from. I turn to a small article by Gregory John Vitale, a pro spots writer "whose opinion matters." On his poll, who is a better player: Mike Trout, Miguel Cabrera, or someone else? Out of a total of 46 fans, somewhat comparable to the MVP voting (and any other award, for that matter,) 80.4% voted Trout and 19.6% voted Cabrera. No one voted other, which just adds heat to our debate because it is now just between our two players. I did the math, and 37 voted Trout, and nine voted Cabrera. It may be a small sample size, but it does seem that Trout is more liked than Miguel Cabrera. "These advanced statistics do not mean more than the big three. If my opponent has the audacity to argue this point, then he is truly not knowledgeable about this topic to be a trustworthy source while judging a debate." I'm sorry, but that is wrong. It is also based on SB%, stolen bases, speed factor, caught stealing, runs created on the basepaths, etc [4]. It is STEMMING from the big three, but is truthfully a little bit deeper than that. If anything, I am more trustworthy than you, because you include no links specifically at the bottom as to which you got your information from. I use sports sites, like ESPN, for my information. I have no way of knowing if you are just typing this debate by your head or by actual credible cites. When you put every single component together that we have been debating about, it still points to Trout as being the better overall ballplayer. Miguel Cabrera will win the MVP because his team made it to the playoffs, but Trout's didn't. If it was the other way around, can anyone deny that Trout wouldn't win it? Good luck debating that! Sites: [1] http://bleacherreport.com... [2] https://twitter.com...* [3] https://twitter.com...* [4] http://www.fangraphs.com... *Please note that this site(s) are not sport-related, but rather used to push points across. Thank you for reading all of that! It would mean a ton to me if you voted Mike Trout as the better player in his lengthy debate!!!!