When you look at the Nationals new ballpark on high definition TV, you get the sense of a nice job but nothing special. Even during last night’s Mets win, Gary Cohen remarked there was nothing that really stood out making the new digs a classic. Certainly it is better than the cookie cutter concrete doughnuts of years gone by but by today’s retro standards, nothing to write home about.

It has a quirky outfield fence, the wide concourses, and the picnic area in left center field. There are sections of stands in right field that are split off from the main stadium structure similar to Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. So all in all it’s a nice baseball stadium but it’s nowhere near as classy as Camden Yards or PNC Park. So while everyone is grateful the multipurpose behemoths of the 60s and 70s are gone, every new ballpark that opens up is not necessarily met with flattering reviews. Citi Field and the new Yankee Stadium should be much better received than the Nationals new park. The facades alone on the New York stadiums leave the Washington field in the dust.

The one thing the Nationals Park does do well is continue the trend of smaller seating capacities. At 41,000 seats, the Nats new park is among the smaller fields in both leagues providing a nice cozy intimate atmosphere, miles ahead of hulking RFK Stadium. In fact, since the 1980s, baseball stadiums have reduced the number of seats by a large margin. Since 1989, 19 of the 30 current major league stadiums are new. The New York parks come on line next season and 4 more will likely be constructed within the next three to five years. They include Minnesota (under construction), Miami, St. Petersburg Fla, and Fremont, California for the A’s.

Skydome, now called the Rogers Centre, in Toronto was the first new park built (1989) since the Metrodome opened in the early eighties. Even by today’s standards, the first retractable roof stadium is as sterile as anything conjured up in the multi purpose days. Its seating capacity is a bit over 50,000, still one of the larger fields in baseball. The next stadium to open was the new Comisky Park in Chicago, now known as U.S. Cellular field. Designed by HOK, the new field for the White Sox was not received well at all. Sox fans were upset that the new stadium lacked the character of the old one. One complaint was the steep rake of the upper deck. A few years ago, Cellular underwent a renovation that reduced the size of the upper deck and added a canopy that provides some character. The seats were also replaced with new ones colored forest green, similar to many other retro parks. Plus the seating capacity was reduced to just over 40,000 in an attempt to make the park homier.

The retro ballpark craze started in 1992 when Oriole Park at Camden Yards opened. For the first time in decades, a ballpark was built within a community restricting size and dimension. However instead of this being an obstacle as it had when city space was hard to come by years earlier, now it was embraced. Suddenly quirkiness and asymmetry were in. The ballparks that followed, including the soon to open Citi Field in Flushing, have all taken their lead from the development that started in Baltimore. Smaller numbers of seats have also been a part of the new craze.

In 1988, the average seating capacity in the Major Leagues was a shade under 53,000. Currently, and including Washington’s new ballpark, the average has dropped to just under 46,000, 7000 fewer seats. In the next few years after the two New York parks open, plus the ones in Minnesota, Fremont, and Florida, the average will drop to just over 41,000 seats.

While many may criticize Mets management for not building a stadium with more seating, perhaps they got it right. Citi Field’s seating capacity is listed as 45,000 but that includes standing room. The actual number of seats is 44,100, which will be above average once all the new proposed parks in both leagues open. Big cavernous stadiums for baseball just do not work. There are too many seats that never get sold. The question Mets brass and other owners had to ask themselves was did it make sense to have so many seats when there will be only a few sell outs a year. Why pay to maintain a percentage of the park that rarely gets used. Plus smaller seating capacity generates demand. The fear of not getting tickets because of less seating makes consumers buy up seats faster. The new Yankee Stadium will seat over 51,000 but this is an exception. Visitors to New York wanting to take in a baseball game generally want to see the Yankees. They simply have more of a national draw than the Mets do. While people worry they will not get seats in the new Mets Park, they need to just look at Shea’s attendance now. I was at last Thursday’s game against the Nationals and there were many empty seats. The listed attendance that evening was 46,000 but there were far fewer people there. The point is, as long as money is not an option, most fans will get in, even if they have to stand.

Baseball just works better in a smaller more intimate setting. Anyone who ever saw a game in Fenway Park or Wrigley Field will attest to this. Ironically, Fenway’s capacity has actually grown over the past few years but is still under 40,000. Intimacy is also probably why minor league games have become so popular—that along with the cheaper prices.

So while I give the Nationals new home a mediocre review, its still superior to the ball fields of years gone by. It’s just that now there are so many wonderful green cathedrals to compare it to. Next season should be very special when Citi Field and the new Yankee Stadium open.

Notes: It was good to see the Mets win last night but it’s a little disconcerting when the pitcher, Johan Santana, hits the ball farther than the regular hitters. Delgado’s struggles continue but in fairness he hit the ball hard a couple of times but is not getting any breaks.