As we all grow weary of the Hillman Era, please ponder the following:
With Trey Hillman -- yes, I should say something about him -- there will be a strong desire to revert to this narrative. His supposed strengths are an emphasis on the morally-superior "fundamentals" and his strong character, which includes his religious beliefs. The players themselves are not immune to this way of thinking. Even a robotic, atheistic manager would get his share of praise if the team played better. As I've tried to show before on this site, sometimes on back to back days the story can completely change. One day the manager keeps 'em loose, the next he won't let 'em back down, and on and on...
So with regards to Trey Hillman, if you seek a RR verdict, here it is: as with the Bell firing/mystery, what is actually most important is what we can learn about Dayton Moore from all this. While it may sound backwards, the desire to play smallball is actually scarier than any attempt to play it. If Moore's idea of fixing the offense is to bunt more as opposed to signing a guy who can actually, you know, hit, then that is the problem, not the bunts Hillman later calls. If Dayton Moore looks at Jorge de la Rosa and thinks the problem is "fundamentals" and hustle, and not an inability to know where the ball is going, then that is the problem.
I don't fully discount the "leader of men" aspect, although I do think it is both greatly overblown and irrelevant most of the time. If the Royals hired me, they would quickly have a problem in the clubhouse because I wouldn't get any respect, guys wouldn't listen, probably wouldn't respect curfew, wouldn't take extra BP, etc. But, just like in the Andrew Marvell is now the manager scenario, the Royals aren't going to hire me. Ninety-five percent of the guys who get hired are from central casting, and get respected as long as they themselves don't act like buffons. Trey Hillman, no doubt, is in that category.