The Kansas City Royals, losers of 18 straight, start a series tonight with the once-red hot A's in Oakland, a team that swept them by a collective score of 32-5 in three games in midst of their current streak. Should the Royals again be swept by the A's, they would tie the AL record for consecutive losses (21 games) by the 1988 Orioles. The O's did it at the start of the season, jettisoning one manager (Cal Ripken Sr.) six games into the streak.

After the A's, the Royals play hosts to the Red Sox for three games, at the end of which, should all things go right (or rather wrong), KC could tie the all-time consecutive game losing streak, 24 games by the legendarily bad Cleveland Spiders. Now, that would be a hard record to break, but I think the Royals have it in them.

The Royals did seem to turn their season around right before the All-Star game. After their first manager, Tony Pena, quit with an 8-25 record, and their second, interim Bob Schaefer (5-12), had no more luck than Pena, the team sat at the horrific record of 13-37 on May 29. Buddy Bell was named manager, and then the Royals won four straight and eleven of fifteen, sweeping both the Dodgers and Yankees, a truly singular feat, in that span.

However, their success was fleeting. Since then, the Royals are 14-40 (a .259 winning percentage). Even without their current streak that's 14-22 (.389). Bell is 25-44 as their manager after starting 11-4.

The Royals over the last two years are 96-185 (.342), the 60th worst two-year record in baseball history and the seventh worst since World War II:

Add in a 62-100 (.383) record in 2002, and it gets even worse. The oddest thing about the Royals in the 2000s is their brief success in 2003. They finished 83-79 that year and were in the pennant race for a substantial part of the season. Here's a look at their record over the last four years (with a projection for 2005):

The Royals are potentially one of four teams in baseball history to have one winning year sandwiched among three years with am abysmal winning percentage under .400, and they would be the first to do it without a little help. It's sort of the Brady Anderson's 50-homer year for baseball teams. They come out of nowhere and quickly disappear:

The 1884 O's went 63-43 (.594) in a rare year with three major leagues (NL, AA, and Union Association. That year came after two under .300—19-54 (.260) in the first year, 1882, and 26-68 (.292) in 1883—but before two sub-.400 years—41-68 (.376) and 48-83 (.366). they qualify for the list twice.

The Louisville Colonels were 88-44 (.667) and in first place in the American Association in another year in which there were three major leagues (1890). Their previous years were 48-87 (.356) and 27-111 (.196—meaning that they had almost a 500-point one-year turnaround) and then they followed up with 55-84 (.667)

The Cardinals went 82-70 (.539) in the midst of World War I after going 60-93 (.392). Then they followed the one winning season up with a 51-78 (.395) and a 54-83 (.394) year.

The Royals would be the first team to complete these dubious feat without dilusion induced by a third major league or a war in their one winning season. That's wacky.

And for final bit of wackiness, the Royals are now one of eleven teams in the last 106 years to have two managers with substantial stints (at least ten games) with a winning percentage under .350. Here are the Royals managerial records this season:

Now, here are teams with two sub-.350 managers in one season since 1899:

You might notice that Bell projects to an under .350 record given the current Royal projections. That would mean that the Royals would be only the eighth team all-time with three sub-.350 managers. Here they are:

If you consider that the Cubs employed a rotating head coach system in 1961, that would mean that the Royals would be the first team in 107 seasons to reach such a mark of managerial futility. The Cubs had nine different managerial stints that year, so none of those guys had a record under .350 if you combine their disparate stints. Witness:

OK, so did I mention that the Royals kind of suck?