In order for you to understand the carefully crafted argument of this post, I need to tell you that I'm a numbers guy, a math teacher by trade, and I've already explained how J2 is an English major (OK, admittedly he's an English major that could kick the crap out of me if he wanted to, but still....). So when it comes to numbers, I think it's clear which of us has the moral and intellectual authority.
And so, when I voice an opinion about numbers, I would think people would listen. For example, I think 10 is a very good number. A better number than 20, as a matter of fact. 20 is not a number to be trusted; it hangs around on street corners smoking and punching smaller numbers and kicking little old lady numbers. Meanwhile, 10 is back in the 'burbs, mowing lawns, picking up litter, doing its homework, listening to real music, not this stuff that kids are listening to nowadays. 10 has grit. It understands that money doesn't grow on trees, and it wouldn't jump off a cliff if all its friend numbers did. 10 is an Eagle Scout. 10 says "please" and "thank you."
I do not think 20 is a very good number. 20 is Eddie Haskell. 10 is Richie Cunningham. Marsha Brady is 25, but that's another story.
The main point is, that 10 is better than 20.
The first 10 reps are much better than the second 10. And it's the second ten reps that turns 10 into 20. They're rotten. They hurt. I don't like them. But do you think I could convince J2 of that? No way. Not on your life. He'd just spout a bunch of English-major propaganda about the last one being the one that builds, or something, and laugh his evil little laugh, and keep counting. "11, 12, 13. . ." like something in an Edgar Allen Poe story.
On the other hand, 20 is much better than 30. . . .