except again they (in the article) don't do _raw_ workflow that you wanted ("...ingest about 20-60 RAW files every 15-20 minutes, perform a quick color correction (Iíve developed a few presets in Lightroom for this) and export as .jpg...")... did you give up on the raw part ?
So I've actually got a combination of both going on now.
I picked up a Canon 1DX II, and with the Cfast read and write times, plus the smaller file size of 20mp, working in RAW hasn't been much of an issue.
This is my first sport's job. I mainly shoot documentary work and I was relying on my Sony A7R II and Pentax 645Z in that field. The Sony actually held on pretty well for ML Baseball, but compared to the 1DX II there is no comparison. The file size is less than half so Lightroom doesn't come to a crashing hault on me when editing.
Still, RAW is certainly slower than a .jpg workflow, which I use quite a bit as well, but with presets loaded, and tailored for the lighting (which is consistent every game), I work pretty quickly in RAW. The 1DX II .jpg files are really nice though, so I go back and forth.
The biggest issue is dynamic range...stadium lights hitting white uniforms and dark shadows on player's faces. That's where RAW really helps. All the Pros alongside me are, of course, using Photo Mechanic. My photos don't go to wires though, so metadata is a nonissue.
I had a hard time liking Photo Mechanic...due in large part to working with LR, PS, C1 for so long. When the time comes, hopefully, that a wire service wants me to work for them I'm sure I'll be back here asking if LR can add metadata as effectively as Photo Mechanic, or if there is a workaround to make it work. It sucks not being able to do any post editing, which Photo Mechanic doesn't allow.