I like this thread; the contents of the initial post basically mirror my own thoughts. Hammer-fired guns are just sexy, and I believe they have a very slight advantage in reliability due to more force being imparted on the primer.
At some point, I made my peace with the topic, and am interested in either type of gun if it meets my other requirements. One of those is something I can ride into the holster (like a hammer). That narrows out a significant portion of striker-fired guns, which all seem to have that ugly plate on the back of the frame, so I end up preferring hammers in most cases. But it isn't specifically because I don't like strikers. I love my Walther PPS and it is my primary carry these days, despite a safe filled with hammer-fired autos and revolvers.
I don't understand why more striker manufacturers don't put some sort of hammer-like device on the back that can be ridden into holsters. It would cost very little to add and would make the guns much safer. I don't think anyone is worried about ND when they are holding the gun, it is all about when they are holstering the weapons.
Anyway, I guess my answer is, you don't have to choose. But, since you just like hammer guns more, and you shoot them marginally better, there is your answer. Not everything has to be numbers and logic; if you like something, and it is reliable and you are good with it, carry it.
I wear a mechanical watch because its cool; it loses 5 minutes a week and costs more than a quartz watch, but I like it.