By "athletic" I guess you're saying that there's got to be an aspect of physical training involved, as well as the skill aspect. And, of course, hitting is a tremendously physical thing.
For example, being strong helps a lot -- both upper body, and leg strength are crucial. Working on bat speed helps a lot -- which also requires a lot of physical conditioning. If nothing else, the success of "steroidal hitters" shows that there is a very strong physical component.
What you're basically saying, BTW, is that there's nothing "athletic" about the primary focus of most sports -- shooting a basketball, fielding a baseball, being a goalie, hitting a puck with a hockey stick, catching or throwing with a lacrosse stick, kicking a ball of any sort....
In other words, you seem to be saying that "skill" is not an athletic thing. The fact is, practice and workouts improve skills, in exactly the same way that practice and workouts improve physical conditioning. Which is why teams and players who practice skills, are better than those who merely get in shape.
You've made pointless distinction -- skill and physical ability are inseparable components of "athleticism."
For me, the decathlete is the worlds greatest athlete. If you put a decathlete on a soccer pitch, he'll do fine. If you put him on a baseball diamond, he'll look like a fool if he's never played the game. (Try playing slow-pitched softball with people from cultures who play cricket.)
The decathlete could play basketball if he didn't have to score and could play several football positions with the barest of practice. (Assuming he played in a league with people of similar size.)
You've made pointless distinction -- skill and physical ability are inseparable components of "athleticism."
On the contrary. They get separated all the time. Hockey has good skaters, good stick-handlers, goons, etc.