Another question might be whether we can say that he shot a lot of film--measured, say, in miles per hour--relative to, say, a fashion photographer working in 35mm, a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer, or did he just spend more hours out working with the camera than most street photographers? Fashion less so, but sports, wildlife, and street are all areas where there are many random factors (mainly subject movement, shifting light, and moving obstructions) that can get in the say of getting a good photograph, so people do tend to shoot a lot of film.
In fashion, I think the motive to shoot a lot is in part personal style and in part the pressure to be productive and shoot a lot of products in a limited amount of time. Imagine you're shooting a catalogue that has a beach theme, and you're dealing with outdoor lighting, models and assistants being paid to be on set, and there are hotel and travel costs, and you're trying to use morning and late afternoon light--100 rolls of film a day seems like a modest expense and good insurance.
In a half-day of good bird photography, I usually shoot about 6-8 rolls of 36, and I'm pretty conservative. I'd say most serious bird photographers shoot at least twice that in the same amount of time, and probably more than twice now that most of them aren't using film.
Rather than thinking of Winogrand using the "spray and pray" method, I think he was just out there working hard. Maybe it was obsessive to work that hard, and there may have been irrational psychological motivations, but that's not so unusual for people who are very dedicated to what they do.