I will take the bait. Because, Friday.
Let me start by saying that I had read the article well before you posted it, so I did not base my original comment on only the quote you chose to highlight in your post.
Early in the article, the author stated that "last night [Dyson] was a big whiny baby who could have stood to take a few moments to gather himself and contemplate his shortcomings and general place in the world before spouting off." This I find contradictory to his argument further in the article about allowing yourself to react to emotion. What he has asked of Dyson was to control the whirlwind of emotions he experienced shortly after the game—the bitterness of defeat, the guilt over one bad pitch, the frustration of a premature end to the post-season, and whatever else that such an emotionally charged series and game could have ignited in the relief pitcher (a former Blue Jay), who came in and gave up what would eventually be the series-winning home-run.
All these emotions are as valid, and human, as the ones that Bautista experienced, the moment he sent the team to the ALCS with a single swing of his bat.
To me, Dyson's outward expression of defeat is not so different from Bautista's outward expression of elation. They are both genuine reactions to real, human emotions. Should Dyson have said what he did? No, probably not. Given the circumstances, though, it was a very understandable and forgiveable reaction. What the author expected of Dyson was to be dignified and graceful in defeat, both of which are highly laudable and respectable qualities, but not that easy to achieve.
His own article suggests to me neither dignity nor grace, and therein lies the problem for me. We are blind to our own double standards when situations align with our own views. It is already painfully obvious to just about everyone that Dyson said what he did because he was upset, so why waste virtual editorial space to trash the man further? Why not, as he himself suggestion, take a few moments to gather himself and take the high road?
Hyperboles are exactly that—an exaggeration of a fact or view to elicit a reaction from your audience. This means they are still born out of an established belief in the first place. Unless he conjured opinions out of thin air for clicks.
I still maintain that the author could have chosen to expound persuasively on the virtue of the very human instinct for chest-thumping without resorting to name-calling with an air of superiority. I would like to think that this world is big enough for all of us. I know that this article was written in the name of good fun, and by dinner-time we will have all but forgotten it, but underlying all the jest and rhetoric is a glimpse of that comparative nature permeating the society in which we live today.