Well, you can parse that data several ways. You choose to say a 2 point increase is not that great. And numerically it sure doesn't sound like much. But when the base was 5.5 points a match and increased to 7.5 points a match, that's a 36% increase. Now, again, that may not sound like much, but for athletes and teams that are already competing at a high level, a 36% increase in production is, in most cases, gonna be a pretty impressive increase.
Penn State football scored 25.00 points per game in 2021 and went 7-6 (ugh). They increased that to 35.77 points per game in 2023 (a 43% increase) and went 11-2 and everyone was pretty darn thrilled with the turnaround. Much better. Penn State basketball scored 64.6 points per game in 2021-22 and went 14-17. They increased that to 72.2 points in 2022-23 (just a 12% increase) and went 23-14 and got to the second round of the NCAA tourney. Most fans were ecstatic about that. Much better. Penn State ice hockey scored 3.1 goals per game in 2021-22 and went 17-20. They increased that a measly 6% to 3.3 points per game in 2022-23 and went 22-10 and also got to the second round of the NCAA tourney. Pretty nice, and much better!
Granted, I'm using team stats, but the point remains for individual stats. I mean, using the major sport currently in-season, MLB players average around a .250 batting average. A 36% increase would jump one to a .340 batting average which in most years is going to put them right there for a batting title (It would have won both league's titles the last two years).
Point being, I think the end-of-year-result going from a DNP at NCAA's to a 3rd-place at NCAA's is much better. And that 36% increase in scoring helped, therefore in my mind his score was much better. As you said, you can decide.