Obviously, commanders make a huge difference in any military engagement...a good one can pull out a win..a bad one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory..LH's basic thesis is that the German Army in the west, facing superior forces, overwhelming logistics, and ever increasing IS control of the skies....fighting basically a moving defensive battle..did exceptionally well..
Lok at the Italian campaign, where the Germans used the terrain to impede the US advance for months..
Furthermore, even if the statement was accurate, it would have no meaning. If you were to examine German operations in WWII the only example you could find of their army defeating a similar sized opponent, at least on paper, would be the Battle of France, which is misleading since the forces that actually clashed in the German breakout through the Ardennes were not evenly matched. The Germans were not on equal footing defeating the Poles, the Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, nor British before the battle of France. They overwhelmed the Russians during the early stages of Barbarossa and when the numbers were evened out they lost big. The German military lost the Battle of Britain despite having superiority in numbers for Pete's sake!