Remember the difference between 'concepts' and 'semantics' [paradoxically applies to this statement too].
I prefer the word SUPRAnatural, as in 'above/beyond' the natural.
IF we were to dig deep enough and find that the first subatomic particle in the first neuron that fires in the brain of the individual hitting the ball gets activated by a 'demon'. IF that somehow can be measured, and above all: it OCCURS, as in HAS AN EFFECT in the natural world which is governed by the word 'naturalism', to me, the question then becomes, how can it then be 'supernatural'/'supernatural'?
In most of these situations it's a question of what we perhaps currently know/are able to understand/able to measure. It is less a question of certain phenomena existing beyond EXISTING scientific laws, that we currently cannot grasp. See Schrödinger's book What is Life, chapter 7.
In other words, it's more a question of semantics, and as EVI1M4chine comments above about USEFULNESS. A hypothesis is an EDUCATED guess. Science tries to move deeper and deeper to fundamental causes of effects, like peeling off a layer of onion. The whole, complete answer is impossible to provide at anyone point, then it's possible that the whole universe of all its components would have to be described at the very point in time that the bat hit the ball.
What would even 'super-/supra-natural' be? Scientific laws evolve with observations and growing knowledge. Anything observable in the natural world by natural minds and sense ought to be 'intra-natural' by default, just perhaps not currently explainable.