Score it how you think best. To explain my votes a little; I wanted to place more emphasis on the fighting admirals, rather than admistrative admirals. So it elimanates some good candidates such as Paul Weneker, but you get the likes of Vian thrown in.
I voted for Tanaka over Mikawa simply because I felt that Mikawa didn't finish the job at Savo, loosing sight of the primary objective, which set a pattern for the Japanese admirals. Tanaka had a way of making something out of nothing, and he dealt the USN one of its most humilating defeats.
I know a lot of people don't like Halsey, but he made tough decisions and that was his job. In my opinion Guadalcanal was the decisive campaign of the Pacific war and he saved that campaign.
Marschall was the best at sea admiral the Germans had, but they fired him because he didn't follow through with a plan that had been run over by real world events. Young guns like Johannessen did not really make Admiral before the fighting was already decided. Some captains like Krancke and Meisel showed inititive but then they got promoted to desk admiral jobs, so their combat experience and sea time was wasted.
I agree with your assessment of Tanaka. He was brilliant. However, Mikawa deserves some slack for his decision at Savo, as he rightly considered the survival of his force as an important if unstated objective. He had every right to believe that had he tarried for the hours required to move south and finish off the transports his small force would have suffered grievously at the hands of USN aircraft during their retirement when the sun rose. He could not have known that the carriers were preparing to retire but unaware of what happened during the night due to poor radio comm with Turner.
as to Halsey, I have to agree that his fighting spirit energized his troops during the critical phase of the campaign. He did make some hard decisions but these included some absolute failures in judgement during that same period. Some because of his (IMO) reliance on the opinion of his chief of staff Miles Browning:
1. Putting inexperienced and untested Callahan over Scott in charge of the cruiser force that confronted the Hiei and Krishima. Halsey's decision cost the life of Adm. Norman Scott, the USN's most experienced and successful battle commander, who was killed by friendly fire from Callahan's flagship San Francisco. F.J. Fletcher and Brown before him, faced with similar choices, chose experience over a small difference in time in grade.
2. Relieving Gil Hoover, skipper of the Helena, probably one of the finest ship captains in the USN and on track for flag rank. Hoover was relieved for making one of the toughest decisions of the entire war, which Browning and Halsey arm-chaired and monday-morning quarterbacked with the worst example of second guessing of which I am aware.
3. Halsey's use of his carrier forces was over aggressive against superior enemy forces and resulted in the loss of the Hornet and significant damage to the Enterprise.
4. Halsey and staff remained unaware of how his orders were being interpreted by his surface action group which resulted in the Washington and SoDac being out of position on November 13-14 when IJN cruisers bombarded Henderson Island.
yes, I admire Halsey for many qualities but his performance is IMO quite blemished. In his memoirs, he admits he made a mistake in the Hoover affair.