The turnover stats below are for conceded, unfortunately I am totally unable to find a publicly available database for historical test matches that has a turnovers won stat recorded.
Here are the raw stats from the last 3 games which Pocock, Hooper and McCaw played against New Zealand and Australia, respectively (all sourced from ESPN):
Pocock
October 16th, 2011 - Auckland:
Runs: 10
Meters: 22
Clean Breaks: 0
Defenders Beaten: 0
Tackles: 13/1
Turn Overs: 0
Penalized: 1
80 minutes Played
August 27th, 2011 - Brisbane:
Runs: 8
Meters: 10
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 16/0
TO: 0
Penalized: 1
80 Minutes Played
August 18th, 2012 - Sydney:
Runs: 6
Meters: 1
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 4/1
TO: 0
Penalized: 2
80 minutes Played
Hooper
August 17th, 2013 - Sydney:
Runs: 7
Meters: 19
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 5/1
TO: 1
Penalized: 0
80 Minutes Played
August 24th, 2013 - Wellington
Runs: 6
Meters: 18
CB: 0
DB: 1
Tackles: 7/0
TO: 2
Penalized: 4
80 Minutes Played
October 19th, 2013 - Dunedin
Runs: 5
Meters: 18
CB: 0
DB: 1
Tackles: 11/1
TO: 1
Penalized: 3
McCaw
August 17th, 2013 - Sydney
Runs: 14
Meters: 14
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 9/2
TO: 1
Penalized: 3
72 Minutes Played
August 24th, 2013 - Wellington
Runs: 6
Meters: 7
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 14/0
TO: 1
Penalized: 0
80 Minutes Played
October 20th, 2012 - Brisbane
Runs: 5
Meters: 22
CB: 0
DB: 0
Tackles: 14/2
TO: 1
Penalized: 2
80 Minutes Played
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before any of you get your panties in a twist - this isn't in any way meant to be scientific, just a casual look at the stats in lieu of a team announcement.
Honestly, comparing Hooper and Pocock directly is a bit of an exercise in futility for what it's worth to me. They're extremely different in the way they play and each has proven merits to their play-style.
I do think that Pocock can have a greater impact as an individual, though. Whether or not he can do the things he used to do is a huge question but he literally fucking broke other teams with his turnovers in the past.
I can't think of another player in world rugby right now that's still playing who has ever had the one-man influence at the ruck that Pocock has/did other than Richie and even then I'd back Pocock in a 1-on-1 at the ruck.
On the whole though I think Hooper contributes more to a team which is already playing relatively well. He offers far more options on attack with his speed, footwork and ability to "play heavy" in contact while still being a more than serviceable flanker from a defensive perspective (RJ, if you're reading this, piss off).
On one hand you've got a dynamo who is pretty much constantly offering himself around the field on both sides of the ball and all of the good things that stem from that + a good rugby brain + phenomenal genetics. We've all seen him do it enough times.
On the other hand you've got a player who isn't going to have much presence on attack but who is fucking impossible to move off the ball (Poey secured a TON of ruck ball for the Wallabies on attack), who can also pick and choose his moments to attack the opposition ruck in a way that is really, truly special in the scope of the history of Rugby Union. If you are a proponent of using your defense as a form of attack..you can't do any better.
Link is seemingly one of the most prominent "horses for courses" coaches running around these days so I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of both of them if Pocock can get healthy and return to form.
TL;DR Hooper is probably the better choice for a team that is gelling well and functioning like it should, he can do things that will "snowball" your efforts if you're the dominant team. Pocock is one of the best defensive players and on-ballers ever and can largely turn games on his own with his defensive work but struggles (relatively) when his team has the ball
