This is a bullshit hackneyed cliche. Statistics don't ever lie, or are swayed by bias, unlike human emotions and opinions. But stats of course always need contextualising.
The fact that Eriksen played a deeper midfield role, which involved getting through far more of the ball in build up, rather than in forward areas, should make it harder for him to assist and score, despite this he still managed to score/assist combined twice as much as Moura, despite Moura playing entirely in attacking areas, and he played 14 times as ARM/ALM - and still managed 0 assists.
I'm not saying they are similar players, or even that they play identical roles or positions often (but they have both played AM). Moura spent plenty of minutes as an AM. Part of that remit, part of any forward players remit is to create for others as well as get on the end of others creation. Moura cremates very little for anyone else. If he was a goal a game striker, that would be a payoff. But he isn't. Moura scored in 7 of his 25 starts.
Eriksen on the other hand contributes productively, creatively, scoring and assisting as well as doing a midfield job and all the extra work that involves and does this much more consistently and has for 5 years.
That's the context. That's why I don't understand the massive criticism of Eriksen yet you holding Moura in higher regard and not getting so angry about his contribution as Eriksen's, unless this is being led by emotion, not rationality.
Again, all the unbiased evidenced suggests Moura is more likely to win the latter and Eriksen the former, if we extract emotion and hurt feelings from the equation.