The game of baseball is popularly referred to as “America’s national pastime.” In North America, the professional baseball organization known as Major League Baseball sets the rules for the game and runs the show. It has been doing so since 1876.
Over the past decades MLB saw a decline in fan engagement that seemed to be tied to how the game was being played. Things like teams strategically placing fielders out of position against batters who tend to pull the ball (called “the shift”) which made it harder for those hitters to get on base and contributed to a reduction in overall major league batting averages. Or nine-inning games that were taking too long because of pitchers’ lengthy delays between pitches and batters who went through lengthy adjustment rituals before getting “set” to hit several times during each turn at bat. Or limitless pick-off efforts by pitchers who want to prevent base stealing, thereby slowing down action on the base paths. Games dragged on for hours and fans were losing interest. Baseball needed a faster pace and more action.
So, MLB changed the rules. But it did so incrementally. And it made the changes based on recommendations from a competition committee of stakeholders, composed of four active players, six members appointed by MLB and one umpire.
Beginning last Thursday, with the season’s opening day, MLB banned the shift, shortened the time pitchers had to prepare between pitches, imposed strict time limits on batters getting “set” and mandated larger bases with limited pick-off opportunities for pitchers. The new rules didn’t change the game. They refined it. And the changes seem to be working.
We know that running a country is far more complex and consequential than administering a national sports empire. And the demands of government and democracy are more intricate than efforts to enhance an entertainment program. But the pursuit of incremental change rather than a comprehensive overhaul of an historic enterprise — as pursued by MLB — has applicability to any effort to change a system of operation.
That seems to be the approach of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, as he seeks to orchestrate discussion, debate and compromise regarding the controversial judicial overhaul legislation and related changes in governance that are confounding the people of Israel. During the pause in the legislative process over the Passover holiday and recess announced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Herzog is trying to reach consensus on the definition of the problems and to work toward compromise on the means to address them. There is wisdom in that approach.
In any compromise, neither side gets everything it wants. But both sides can gain from the effort. In order to achieve that result, however, both sides need to engage meaningfully, with an eye toward agreement rather than winning. Unfortunately, from what we have seen thus far, there is question whether such serious commitment to the effort is being pursued by both sides.
The Passover Pause is an opportunity for meaningful engagement and to begin the healing process for what has become a fractured Israel. As fans of Israel, we urge both sides to embrace it. ■