To understand better good generalization performance in state-of-the-art neural network (NN) models, and in particular the success of the ALPHAHAT metric based on Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization (HT-SR) theory, we analyze of a corpus of models that was made publicly-available for a contest to predict the generalization accuracy of NNs. These models include a wide range of qualities and were trained with a range of architectures and regularization hyperparameters. We break ALPHAHAT into its two subcomponent metrics: a scale-based metric; and a shape-based metric. We identify what amounts to a Simpson's paradox: where "scale" metrics (from traditional statistical learning theory) perform well in aggregate, but can perform poorly on subpartitions of the data of a given depth, when regularization hyperparameters are varied; and where "shape" metrics (from HT-SR theory) perform well on each subpartition of the data, when hyperparameters are varied for models of a given depth, but can perform poorly overall when models with varying depths are aggregated. Our results highlight the subtlety of comparing models when both architectures and hyperparameters are varied; the complementary role of implicit scale versus implicit shape parameters in understanding NN model quality; and the need to go beyond one-size-fits-all metrics based on upper bounds from generalization theory to describe the performance of NN models. Our results also clarify further why the ALPHAHAT metric from HT-SR theory works so well at predicting generalization across a broad range of CV and NLP models.