What you said was equally true of the other American field generals in Europe. Patton wasn’t fighting a retreating army in North Africa where is changed the whole dynamics of the American invasion of Casablanca. He did a number on attaching (not retreating) German armor at the Battle of El Guettar in Tunisia. I won’t go into Sicily where he outran Montgomery, or his roll in halting the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. Using the tools available and creating or exploiting dynamic situations is what make a great general and saves troops.
MacArthur’s strategy of bypassing Japanese held islands, cutting off their supply, then going back and mopping them up was responsible for his success.
The Navy distinctly did not want to invade the Philippines, some attribute the decision to MacArthur’s vanity. (”I shall return.”) Nimitz was as responsible for island hopping as much as MacArthur. It was an obvious strategy. There was absolutely no reason to attack isolated and cut off Japanese garrisons, which is what the Philippines would have been without the invasion. And that was Nimitz recommendation.
I am not minimizing Patton’s skill and initiative, and I did not necessarily say I agree with the assessment that Patton was careless with his soldier’s lives. I think tactics used at Metz must count against him in this score, at a minimum.