There is nothing quite like Opening Day, particularly when Ryan Zimmerman can hit a walk-off home run. But like most fans, I spent much of my time oggling the new stadium, checking out the concessions, and attempting to determine just how the field would “play.” It’s an all-important question, of course, because you build a team to fit a field — and not the other way around. Even so, the assumption here is that National’s Park will be a hitter’s park: primarily because it’s not RFK. I noticed this on opening day: the place looked positively small. The fences seemed on top of the field, just right there.

But honestly? The fences are not in all that much. And from where I sat on Opening Day (just up the third base line beyond the dugout and twenty rows back) it seemed to me that National’s Park looks small only because the fans seem on top of the field, though they are most decidedly not. It’s the same for the players, who commented on this in the wake of the exhibition game versus the Orioles. So my guess is the field will play “long” — that it will be a slight pitcher’s park except in the alleys, where the ball will travel 370 in right-center and 377 in left center (it was 380 at old RFK). That’s a ways to go for someone like Wily Mo. Here tis:

A pitcher’s park? You mean like PETCO? My comment is based on observation, on what I saw: I could be wrong. There’s no question that Zim’s walk off would have been a long out at RFK, but that does not disprove my point: while the actual dimensions of National’s Park are nothing compared to cavernous PETCO Park in San Diego (an astounding 402 feet in the alleys), they are hardly the bandbox dimensions of Wrigley, Houston’s Minute Maid and the positively claustrophobic Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. So what’s the best comparison?

St. Louis’ new Busch Stadium is 375 in left-center and right-center — presumably reachable distances and very much like Nats Park — and 400 in straightaway center. The dimensions in DC and St. Louis are almost exactly the same down the lines. In fact, Busch II (as they call it) is close enough to National’s Park to be almost a replica, and no one (no one) views it as a hitter’s park. Guys like Albert Pujols are easily strong enough to hit the long ball at Busch, but that’s not the point: last year Pujols hit more home runs in Pittsburgh, Houston and Chicago than he did in St. Louis — where he plays half his games. Not scientific enough? The Cardinals ranked 25th in homers last year and while it’s true their line-up is not stacked with big boppers, total home run production at Busch (or Busch II, which opened in April 2006) actually dropped 27 percent last year. That’s for everyone, not just the Cards.

At the end of the year we’ll look back and say “wow” — look what National’s Park did for the team’s hitters compared to RFK. And while that’s a true comparison, the Nats aren’t playing other teams at RFK, they’re playing them in San Diego and San Francisco (where the distance in the gaps is a breathtaking 421 feet), in St. Louis and now in Busch II’s replica stadium along the beautiful Anacostia.

The question is not whether Ryan Zimmerman and Austin Kearns and Dimitri Young will hit more home runs in Nats Park than they did at RFK (they will), the question is whether that means the “Learners” (as Tom would, appropriately, spell them) should start drafting clones of Dave Kingman.

The answer is obvious. This is a game of pitching and so the Nationals should build the team by building their pitching. But my bet is that that is as true for the Nats now as it might have been had they stayed at RFK (God forbid). It might not yet be totally clear, but it appears the Nats are playing in a stadium that will favor strong arms and quick outfielders.

Fine by me.