Well you're right in that hard data on Hawkeye's capabilities is not easily googled, so I can't find a figure on that. But it's certainly the impression I've had from tv features / articles that the massive improvements in computer and digital camera tech from 2001 / 2008 made the system more effective.
Moreover, it doesn't really matter because you almost always get a couple of feet in an lb anyway, and the article states that if the data wasn't solid enough to make a good prediction then they just didn't send one to the broadcasters. There is nothing in that quote to suggest that 2009 or 2014 Hawkeye predicitions are intrinsically inaccurate, and in fact it instead clearly suggests that Hawkeye is more accurate than the human eye under the same circumstances, which is the opposite of the point you're trying to argue.
I agree some hard data would be ideal, but it's reasonably plausible that Hawkeye has trade secrets to protect, and very implausible that the ICC would want to sanction expensive tech additions and huge changes to the game without a reasonable professional standard of proof of usefulness.
This is the thing, really. You say you don't want to believe "just some guy", but it isn't just some guy. It's a guy who makes a living as an expert in ball tracking tech, plus a load of other guys whose job it is to make huge decisions on behalf of the ICC, ECB, ITF, MCC and whoever else is involved. I don't expect a broadcaster to vet their tech like that, but the governing bodies of world sports? And remember the bit where they test elite umpires to make sure they're good enough at guessing lbws, that whole professional umpiring exam bodies and that sort of thing?
There is no smoking gun in terms of large numbers of obviously incorrectly tracked or predicted hawkeye deliveries, and by contrast there are plenty where the analysis seems perfectly reasonable. Andy Flower took England to #1 in the world armed with Hawkeye data and as far as I'm aware it's a standard coaching tool at international level.
So we've got a bunch of plausible looking hawkeye stuff and bunch of guys who are cricket and ball tracking professionals on one side, and some disgruntled fans and the odd oddball delivery on youtube on the other. That's why it remains sensible to assume the probable accuracy of hawkeye vs the human eye, even in the absence of comprehensive online proof.
I'd very much like to see the accuracy comprehensively demonstrated, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Hawkeye really is bullshitting everyone, but the degree of conspiracy required seems quite implausible.
