I don't know if it's intentional (actually it might be) but Zach's simplistic answers usually demonstrate the idiocy of the question being asked. What do think about being up 3-1? What do you think? We're on the road in a hostile environment, who wouldn't want to be 3-1 given the chance.
It's like the reporters have never encountered or considered how to interview a neurodivergent person. Asking two simple questions would typically give them the responses they crave so much:
1) Is there anything you'd like to tell me about the game today? Risk there is a simple answer of "no" may be the outcome. But, just as easily, they'd get a stream of consciousness response with tons of nuggets. Or,
2) What is interesting to you lately? It's a great question to get someone on the spectrum or who suffers with any number of anxiety disorders to information dump in areas that are interesting to them. A great way get a peek into their thoughts and thought processes. The risk there is he may info dump on Starbucks, or hitting or peanut butter cups or butterflies or Princess Bride or any of the things Greinke is known to be interested in but there is also usually really interesting things to write about in there too.
The longterm upside is interest-based trust is developed over time, which promotes more openness and transparency.
