So you're fine with it so long as everyone ends up bloody even though we can do it where no one does. The strike zone is the single greatest determining factor in any baseball game. Evening that part of the game makes the game better.
You're welcome to your opinion but I just don't agree that "perfect" makes the game "better." I mean look at it like this, how has replay changed sports? Just from my gut I'd say at max you're talking about 10-15% of the time that it overturns a particularly egregious call. I'd argue that 5-10% they still blow a call and the remaining is either confirmation of what a play was called or inconclusive info. So for that 10-15% chance of overturning bad calls you're paying both with inadvertent cases such as the whole splitting hairs aspect of tagging 2nd on a double play ball as well as the fact it slows down the game.
And the thing is, that replay only happens a couple of times a game. You're now talking about 200 times+ a game where a machine is making calls. And what happens when the calibration on the machine is off? Statcast doesn't just always "work." Sometimes it doesn't get a good reading on a pitch for whatever reason.
But to me all that stuff is secondary. I like that the game is flawed. I like that there's a human element to making/missing calls. If you don't agree with that then fine. But I don't really think it makes a game undeniably better. Reading the strike zone on any given day is an art presently. I like that. I don't want it to be as cold and methodical as relying on pitch tracking. I also like the fact that soft skills like framing matter. It allows players to find value in a system.
