Yes. Ever looked at a map of oceanic grounds ? There is approximately a factor FIVE between zones of expansion (in the rifts in the middle of ALL oceans of the Earth) and supposed zones of subduction (Chile, North Pacific...). 5 - 1 = 4. So we have an expanding Earth : I found the evidence ! 
You are aware the subduction doesn't just occur in the oceans and that isn't the only way to have the plates "shrink"?
Then there is the issue that you can't see the subduction zones.
Once they go below, that's it, they are gone.
Or are you trying to go based upon pure numbers, if so, having more of them number wise doesn't mean Earth is growing.
The only way to have something like that suggest Earth is growing is by measuring the rate of subduction and the rate of expansion, and seeing if they match. But that would need to be done over a long time scale.
With a hollow Earth, there is no reason for the crust to do anything except collapse.
Not if :
- the shell is 2 850 km thick
- gravity is a push coming from space and has an effect of shielding after some hundred miles (see chapter 5 at the middle of that page : http://forum.planete-astronomie.com/quelques-questions-de-physique-t4807.html?sid=543022c0ddf70a22f290fbae42e557e9 and discussion in the topic "And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?")
- there would be air in the inside so that there would be a pressure preventing the shell to collapse (akin a balloon) and/or a repulsive force - that obviously wouldn't have been observed yet as it would be a force acting inside planets and as you know it, no measurements have been made by man inside planets)
- and matter would be quite solid (like rock), not liquid (at least near the inside and outside surfaces).
Assuming it is 100 km, and that it is just water for that 100 km (to give it a low density), and ignoring the compression of the water and the change in area, the pressure from the water would be 10000 atmospheres or 1 GPa of pressure. The compressive strength of rocks is typically measured on the order of hundreds of MPa, an order of magnitude lower. So even if it was just water in the top 100 km, that would likely be enough to crush the rest of Earth.
Rocks are not capable of being compressed as a shell infinitely. They will fail and collapse.
But the basis of this idea of gravity is that it doesn't get stopped by matter, only a tiny bit does, proportional to the mass of the object. So it wouldn't be entirely shielded by the few hundred miles.
If it was, then that means it is only the first few hundred miles which give rise to Earth's apparent gravity, meaning it has a lot more mass than we thought, and thus would be even more likely to crush the rest of Earth.
It is akin to expecting a balloon to stay inflated, without anything inside to hold it up.
The sheer pressure inside would cause most gasses to liquefy (or solidify). Nitrogen cannot exist as a gas above a pressure of roughly 35 atmospheres.
And then there is the issue of people claiming the centre isn't sealed and that there is a way into the inside of Earth, meaning all that gas would escape. Even if that hole didn't exist, the ground isn't airtight, it is porous and would allow gas out.
So the only hope for it is the unsubstantiated repulsive force.
But then why is it only acting in there?
If that is enough to overcome gravity, why isn't it everywhere? Why does it only work like that inside Earth?
Why doesn't it cause the moon and Earth to be repelled away from each other?
Why doesn't it cause us to be repelled away from Earth?
There would be no reason for any kind of plate tectonics or stress where the plates just move around the surface, and thus no reason for any lava to appear.
Mmmh ... just think about the Earth as a living organism, maybe ?
Ooops, sorry ... 
But there is no reason to.
Even if it was a living organism, there is still no basis for the movement of the plates and lava.