Posted By:
davidcyclebackRose was not banned for moral reasons. He was not banned for breaking the law. He was banned for breaking rules. The rules against betting, and punishment, was clear to every MLB employee since before Rose was a rookie. They were literally posted in every lockerroom.
Gambling was banned in part for practical reasons. MLB felt they couldn't run a successful and longterm profitable league if players and managers are allowed to bet on the game. In particular responding to a real case where players and mob-like people worked in collusion to throw World Series games, MLB felt it important to put their stance against betting in no uncertain terms. MLB has yet felt compelled to change the stance on gambling, and, if it weren't for Rose and his fans, likely few would be arguing against MLB's rule today.
Though, as I already noted, MLB and the HOF are different things. It is not inherently hypocritical to argue that he should be excluded from one but included from the other, and make that argument ... I don't know why Rose says this stuff. It won't move MLB to lift the ban, being that it is, if anything, further evidence of his guilt. It doesn't impress Hall voters. The publication of his last autobiography offended many voters, and likely lowered his theoretical voting percentage.