https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
Okay, this entire article is a stretch, but I appreciate the effort this guy put forward.
Basically, he took a baseball analytics approach to determine Wins Above Replacement (WAR) for the average general in world history. His formula is confusing to say the least but, for that matter, so is Baseball's method to determine WAR in the first place.
His statement on Lee was not very pretty:
There were also generals that had surprisingly low total WAR despite a reputation as master tacticians. Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, finished with a negative WAR (-1.89), suggesting an average general would have had more success than Lee leading the Confederacy’s armies. Lee was saddled with considerable disadvantages, including a large deficit in the size of his military and available resources. Still, his reputation as an adept tactician is likely undeserved, and his WAR supports the historians who have criticized his overall strategy and handling of key battles, such as ordering the disastrous ‘Pickett’s Charge’ on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. In the words of University of South Carolina professor Thomas Connely, “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.”
I could spend a long time arguing against that entire paragraph
Overall, the article and method are pure bunk. Nonetheless, kudos to the author for wading through this amount of data and at least creating a novel way to look at generals in a comparative form.