In the midst of a presidential campaign that already has many Americans fearful about the future comes word of another threat to the national well-being. The question is being seriously asked whether baseball can survive as its fan base ages and it struggles to engage a new generation of followers.

Granted, news of this existential threat to the national pastime comes as something of a surprise: Ticket sales are thriving; televised games are a staple in many local markets; and the game is adorned by a stellar group of emerging young stars. On the other hand, it does make sense that a sport that rewards fans for patient, sustained attention is not in sync with a digital society that increasingly displays the attention span of a gnat. In fact, the very idea of a national pastime, with its connotations of leisure and diversion, seems almost quaint given the frenetic pace of modern life.

Indeed, an essay in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal fretted about the future of the game for just such reasons. And Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, in a recent interview with USA Today, raised the possibility of the most sweeping overhaul of baseball in 100 years or more. The contemplated changes would aim to speed up a game that has slowed to a crawl and to breathe new life into offenses. Football and basketball, baseball’s chief rivals, both offer a faster pace and more scoring, traits that appeal to a younger demographic. This is reflected in viewership comparisons. In 2015, 59 percent of viewers for national baseball broadcasts were over 50, while only 36 percent were for National Basketball Association games.

Among the changes the baseball owners and the players union will consider, Manfred said, are altering the strike zone, curbing defensive shifts in the infield, installing a time clock requiring pitchers to throw within 20 seconds and even limiting the number of pitching changes managers can make during a game. Purists are likely to cry “foul ball” on considering this menu of options, but we think the commissioner is on to something. Whether or not they would attract new fans among young people, several of these possible changes would counter recent trends in baseball that have made the game less enjoyable for loyal, longtime spectators.

For instance, the ability of technology to chart where batters are likely to hit the ball has led to a proliferation of alignments in which fielders, instead of playing at their normal position, bunch together on one side of the infield. These shifts were once reserved for counteracting the mightiest of sluggers; now they are endemic. Five years ago teams employed infield shifts just 2,400 times. This year they are on pace to do so 28,000 times. The predictable result is that batting averages have fallen fast and scoring along with them. And there is something beyond frustrating for the fan to have so many well-hit balls turned into routine outs by infielders playing out of position.

Similarly, far too many pitchers enact a Hamlet routine when a baserunner gets on, deliberating endlessly about whether a fastball or a change-up is the nobler alternative in this sea of troubles. To put it mildly, there is limited satisfaction for the spectator in watching a ballplayer agonizingly make up his mind while the clock ticks on toward three hours plus.

Baseball also has a potential way of making its case for the beauty of the game to young people by harnessing the power of digital media to the lifeblood of the sport — statistics, an ever rich field for fan engagement and debate. It already has an app for that, and it may be that in the future fans will still enjoy the game, but experience it very differently from the way they do at present. The popularity of baseball has waxed and waned before, but it has demonstrated remarkable staying power.