Can of Worms: quantity v. quality - a challenge

So, while we're talking about price fixing and other such nonsense, I thought it might be interesting to put forth an inquiry into how many of us are doing quantity v. quality shots.

I'm old-school, going on just over 3 years as a digital photographer, and I'm still stingy because developing film was damn expensive and I'm horrible at deleting images even if I think I won't use them lol. So I used to shoot once, carefully and cautiously, but nowadays I often shoot twice, and I might even review to make SURE if it's an important shot since I'm digital, but usually 3 is the max I grab. I'm patient. I like to wait for the shot instead of shooting non-stop and consecutively. Again, this is deeply ingrained - I shot film for so many years that the idea of doing what some call 'blast & hope' is beyond my comprehension, but I am sure is the saving grace of many a photographer just starting out.

That being said, there's that theory that if you put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, one of them will eventually write Shakespeare. It has its basis in mathematical probability, and it quite smoothly translates to photographers. From talking to a lot of people, I've learned that the average number of images shot at a full-day wedding is between 2500 and 3000-ish. While I know some go as high as 5000, other are as low as 1000, which still seems soooooo excessive to me as we would shoot maybe 250 or 275 images (10 or 12 rolls of film) and anyone using 20 rolls of film was classified as the proverbial monkey in the days of film - and that was with two cameras - one loaded with B&W and the other with colour!

I think (for me personally) a lot of it is just getting lazy, but in talking to several other togs I've learned that there is a lot of 'blast and hope', not just from the newbies who are praying they don't screw up their first wedding, but from those who have always shot digital and have become accustomed to having that cushion for... lapses in technical proficiency? Boredom? Laziness? All of the above?

So, the question is, do you consider yourself the monkey, or Shakespeare? If you're the monkey, do you feel justified in charging people for your luck within the parameters of the law of averages? How often do you rely on the fact that if you take 500 pictures in an hour you'r sure to get at least 20 you can deliver to the client? And where do newbies fit, if we're all delivering say 500 images from a wedding, but even the old hats are relying on the same philosophy that if you take enough pictures you're going to get something worth using? Do you think you could shoot an entire 14-hour day with just 250 exposures, 200 of which you must deliver to the bride?

If you want a challenge, ask a friend to be your model and see if you can get 20 decent images out of a portrait session in 27 exposures or less, WITHOUT reviewing or deleting a single image...