This past year, after the astounding melt in the Arctic, the maximum extent was greater than the previous maximum, but somewhat less than that seen in the long term average.

The important thing is the mass, not just extent. Greater extent is good in that the higher albedo reflects more energy, but it being winter the benefit is mitigated. But we should not discuss extent without discussing concentration and thickness. The ice that grew was thin. (Also, the max extent wasn't "somewhat less" than the baseline, it was significantly less. 1 million sq. miles or more.) Thus, even though we had a larger extent, it melts quickly under any stress, which is why we saw strong melt in early spring and then this August.

The sea-ice situation around the Antarctic looks a bit different, with the minimum being above both last years and the long term average, but (from your link), the maximum extent appears to be heading to a bit less than the long term average.

As of this writing, they are all three tied. What interests me about the large drop in Antarctica is that it 1. was a drop of about 750,000 sq. m in a short time, and that the second large drop after the initial roughly equaled the timing in the Arctic August melt. I don't think the two are considered closely connected, but it is curious. Almost certainly serendipitous, but still...