Once again, LeBron James has been forced into backpedaling mode after something he said sent scores of people into a tizzy. This time, it was due to statements he made last Thursday regarding how the talent pool in the league is watered-down and it would benefit the NBA to get rid of some teams.

In case you’re playing catch-up, here’s what King James had to say (via ESPN):

“Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the ’80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team,” James said. “The league was great. It wasn’t as watered down as it is [now].”

“[Contraction] is not my job; I’m a player but that is why it, the league, was so great,” James said.

“Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the [league]. Looking at some of the teams that aren’t that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren’t that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let’s take New Jersey and let’s take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I’m not stupid, it would be great for the league.”

His comments didn’t sit well with some people, particularly New Jersey Nets head coach Avery Johnson, who took exception to James’ take on the state of the NBA. But here’s the deal, people. As you can see, the word “contraction” was inserted into LeBron’s quote. He didn’t actually say the word. In fact, he doesn’t even know what “contraction” means, for Pete’s sake. Via ESPN:

“That’s crazy, because I had no idea what the word ‘contraction’ meant before I saw it on the Internet,” James said after the Miami Heat’s practice Monday. “I never even mentioned that. That word never even came out of my mouth. I was just saying how the league was back in the ’80s and how it could be good again. I never said, ‘Let’s take some of the teams out.’ “

Aha! That is sound, logical reasoning right there. How can LeBron be in favor of something if he has never even heard of the word until he saw it on the internet? Allow me to illustrate: let’s say – simply for the sake of argument only – that some misguided pundit argued that killing some of the babies born into the world every day would be an effective means of population control. Obviously, such a deplorable opinion would generate a lot of controversy. But if someone later asked said pundit how they possibly could be in favor of infanticide, that person could potentially argue that if they have never heard of the word “infanticide” before, how could they be in favor of it? Unless a  person can identify the exact word which perfectly describes some particular act, they cannot in any way support said act, even if that person previously stated they were in favor of exactly what that particular word means. It’s all about semantics, you see.

Well played, LeBron. Well played. Your keen mastery of logic mystifies us all.

LeBron James clarifies comments [ESPN]