The relevant context here is that it is baseball superstition not to talk about an impending no hitter, so Sports Illustrated then comes up with kind of a cool visual praeteritio to report the impending no hitter without talking about it, pretty much the definition of a praeteritio. (And the 0s in the bottom row indicate the lack of hits; the full graphic, that includes all of the 0s, didn’t, however, include the tweet-line, which is the praeteritio.)
One of those classics metondoches (should I add this to the portmanteaux list…?) that could go either way. As a metonymy, the bat of course suggests the power behind it, if not the batter himself. As a synecdoche, the bat is a part of the batter. If I were forced to choose, I would say that metonymy is the stronger interpretation, but either one works. What do you think?