I'm not arguing one way or the other for Oliva's HOF candidacy, but I absolutely hate league adjusted numbers. You can do that for any player of that era and they suddenly look amazing offensively. The numbers are what they are and shouldn't need adjusting.
You absolutely hate league adjusted numbers? They are not meant to harm your children or take money out of your pocket. They are meant to provide perspective.
A little perspective, for instance... in 1930, 44 players qualified for the batting championship in the National League. 33 of those hit .303 or higher. The average BA among those 44 was .325. In 1968, the AL league batting average was .230. Only one player hit over .300... Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 to win the title. Surely, you are not arguing that the 33 guys who hit over .303 in the National League in 1930 were better than Yaz, Oliva, and every other player in the 1968 American League?
Tony Oliva and Carl Yastrzemski were every bit as good as the best players from both 1930 and 2012. You would never know it from their stat lines though. Unless you look a little deeper than the surface.
As for your statement that any player of that era suddenly looks amazing, well, those that were amazing in their day look amazing. Those that were mediocre still look mediocre... only by today's standards rather than 1968's.
Making these adjustments didn't suddenly make Oliva look like he won the batting title every year. His rank for each year is, imo, remarkably stable with the differences being accounted for by individual performances such as Ichiro hitting .372 in 2004, eclipsing Tony's batting title season of 1964.
There is no perfect way to compare eras but ignoring the differences is not an option.