What is considered proper peer review varies from field to field, and from person to person. And one can have inadequate peer review at reputable journals.
So I guess the issue is for the journal in question to *usually* have good peer review with most of its *other* papers.
If one has bad peer review in a journal that usually has good peer reviews, then one gets really lucky. Their paper gets all this credibility for nothing.
If, on the other hand, one has good peer review in a journal that usually has bad peer reviews, then one gets really un-lucky. Not only they had to go through all those struggles to get their paper published, but their paper isn't trusted once it was.