Also, I don't see Malvern Hill listed: Lee lost 2,000 more men than McClellan, and both armies were the same size (80,000). Again, based on the fact that one army should be "on defense" and that the attacker usually is to have a 3:1 advantage, it doesn't seem like genius to lose such large percentages of men in so many critical battles. But, as you say, stats can be all over the map. I personally rank Lee #3 among Civil War generals, behind Grant and Sherman, although Jackson might have been at the top if he had an independent command opportunity.
Then we agree.
But note that when Grant & Lee fought at the Wilderness / Spotsylvania and again at Petersburg, Grant outnumbered Lee nearly 2 to 1, and each suffered the same percentage of casualties -- meaning that Grant suffered MORE casualties from his larger force.
My only point here is: before you start blaming one commander for the number of his casualties, take a closer look at both forces, and who actually WON the battle.
I think Lee deserves credit, for example at Antietam, for fighting a much larger force to a draw, even if Lee had slightly more casualties.
Yes, I fully understand that the South could NOT AFFORD it's casualties, while the North COULD. But Lee's job was to defeat the northern army, and he did it better than anyone else.
All three commanders were extremely aggressive and mobile, even (or especially) while "playing defense."