I saw an article that debunk the narrative that Pete is below average 1B. The author explained how the metrics are misleading. He clearly pointed out how some inferior players are considered average to above average, but somehow Pete's play says otherwise. Pete has been better than most in the areas used to judge the quality of the performance. Pete's range is greater than half those listed by the author, but gets hurt by it. Because Pete can get to more balls but doesn't turn them into outs, he is penalized for it. Others, who can't get to the same balls, are not hurt by the same metrics because it was beyond their ranged. Another example is Pete's ability to save bad throws. He may be the best in scooping throws, yet the author pointed out again how metrics claim he is not good at doing that. IMO, the narrative has morphed into facts when it's not really the truth. Now everyone is repeating Pete is no good defensively.