I think the article in DrummerWorld on Moon is dead on:
The emphasis is mine.Moon's musical importance was similar to that of Brian Jones in the Rolling Stones. In much the same way that Jones, through his talent (and his abuse of it) helped lift the Stones above the level of every other blues-based band going, and made their image distinct, Moon did the same thing for the Who. When Jones left the Stones, to die just a few weeks later, they became more professional musically; they settled down with a true and admirable virtuoso in the guise of Mick Taylor, and their sound tightened up, but the youthful edge, the teenage lust was gone, not only from their sound but from their playing. When Keith Moon died, the Who carried on and were far more competent and reliable musically, but that wasn't what sold rock records.
My preference musically has always been the guys who make the whole better, even if they are not the most technically overwhelming. For example, in jazz I love bassist Charlie Haden. He'll never overwhelm you like an NHOP, a Stanley Clarke, a Jaco Pastorius or a Victor Wooten, but everything he plays on is better for his holding the bottom down perfectly.
But there are two sides to the coin, and there is an energy about Moon and the Who that has a certain appeal. Just not what really appeals to me. I tend to like the guys who stand or sit quietly in the corner and just play the s**t out of their instruments.
For me -- it's guys like Gadd or Bozzio, who are on the list, or Colaiuta, who isn't, that top my list.