There's no more important question to ask today than this: What's the real record the Oakland A's are chasing?

Only the great records guru in the sky -- and by that, we mean the Elias Sports Bureau -- really knows.

Do the A's have to win 26 games in a row (i.e., six more) to tie that all-time record held by Sailer Stroud's 1916 Giants? Or do they just have to win 21 in a row (i.e., one more), pulling them even with Fabian Kowalik and the 1935 Cubs?

	A's Roll On
	The longest winning streaks in the major leagues since 1900:
	Year	Team	League	Wins
	1916	NYG	NL	26*
	1935	ChC	NL	21
	2002	Oak.	AL	20
	1906	ChW	AL	19*
	1947	NYY	AL	19
	* Had a tie game during their winning streak

This is the kind of goofy, ridiculous, irrelevant -- and, of course, also momentous and all-consuming -- question that makes our lives as sports fans worth living. We shouldn't care. So naturally, we debate it every waking second.

In case you're just joining this onrushing stat-head avalanche, let's explain:

All the record books tell us the longest winning streak in baseball history is 26 games, by John McGraw's 1916 Giants. There was just one problem with that streak:

Those Giants needed 27 games to win 26 in a row.

That's because they won 12 in a row, then tied one, then won another 14 in a row.

If a hockey team did this, they would be considered to have a 27-game "unbeaten" streak but only a 14-game winning streak.

Since a baseball team did this, however, it goes down as a 26-game winning streak.

Got that?

OK, so that doesn't seem to make much sense to many people all of a sudden -- including the entire A's clubhouse. But it turns out there is a logical explanation. Really.

Here to present it is Elias' Ken Hirdt.

"Tie games are properly ignored in winning or losing streaks in baseball," Hirdt said, "because unlike the NFL or the NHL, where tie games are valid outcomes of games and have impact in the standings, a tie is not a normal outcome of a baseball game -- in the sense that when one occurs in baseball, the game is replayed."

So just as Greg Maddux can be considered to have won seven games in a row at one point this year -- even though his streak included eight no-decisions and two games his team wound up losing -- the 1916 Giants can be considered to have won 26 in a row, even though it took them 27 games to win them.

"I think that people today are not familiar with the idea of a tie in baseball," Hirdt said. "It only happens under extreme conditions nowadays. Until the advent of night baseball, it was an easily accepted outcome, with the idea that the game does not count in the standings and would be made up later in the season. The tie game during the Giants' streak was made up the following day as part of a doubleheader.

Some argue the Giants' feat wasn't as difficult, due to the tie game. Hirdt disagrees.

"I do not think that the tie game made the Giants' task any easier," he said. "They had to come back and play two the next day, having wasted a great performance by a starting pitcher. I don't think the Giants can be penalized for replaying a game that had no effect on the standings."

Fine. So let's not penalize them. No harm, no foul. Works for us. But let's look at this another way:

If the A's do, in fact, go on to win 26 straight games, can we really say that what they did was the same as what those 1916 Giants did? The A's truly will have won 26 games in a row. The Giants, on the other hand, can only claim a "26-game winning streak."

We've spent our whole lives thinking of those two feats as essentially the same thing. Now, being the semantics maniacs we are, we realize they're not the same thing.

So let's concede the 1916 Giants their record. We won't hold it against them that they played all 26 games at home. Or that John McGraw used exactly the same lineup (except for the pitcher and catcher) in every single game. Or that he only went to his bullpen three times during the whole streak. That was then. This is now.

But you're not going to hear us say, no matter how many games these Oakland A's wind up winning, that those Giants won 26 games in a row. They had a "winning streak" that reached 26. But that's all. Folks, start your asterisks.

When we talk about these A's, on the other hand, we'll be able to say they won 20 games in a row. Or 21. Or 22. Or 37. Or however long they go. That, of course, is barring rain, snow, power failures, running out of baseballs or some other unforeseen force that could result in one of their upcoming games ending in a tie.

And every one of you who translated that term, "unforeseen force," as meaning "Bud Selig," go to your rooms immediately. In case you hadn't heard, the Bud-bashing era ended last week. It's the Oakland A's era now. Enjoy it while it lasts.