No denial, the second example do expose more than the first. It was obviously intentional, as not everytime you are "showing" you use less words, sometimes more. And indeed you can come with more than just anger, but that is more or less the intention of using such impressionist method... allow the reader to modify the text on his own.
Of course, not every "showing" is like this, sometimes just sayind "red" hood implies that the little girl is not part of the nobility.
What cann't be confuded, as some are, is that showing implies in economy of language and precision. It does not. Medieval art, with all their allegories, loved to "show", since few could read or understand the depth of intelectual reasoning, much of the art style of the time was "excessive" because they had to exemplify to the peasantry all that was told in the speech and texts. The intricated medieval allegories are born this way and which "shows" that showing can walk in the other route of clarity and brevity.
I still point the reason we say "show, not tell" is because the expression is nice. Telling is showing, it could be "show, not spoil", like you pointed in your first post, show here is akin to implicity, telling to explicity, and telling can be both.
