While I'm a big fan of Fangraphs, I'm not so wild about relying on pitching WAR. They admit that pitching WAR is a bit shaky. I forget if it is Sean Smith who has an alternative WAR for pitching. I prefer using a mix of rates, like FIP, xFIP, ERA+, and some of the other tERA that normalize batted ball, and then look at innings pitched. When I post, I try to put up at least two rate measures and IP if I can when evaluating a player, or WAR and another measure.
Galarraga's big down side is he gives up too much contact and walks 3+ batters per 9. Last year, he became flyball prone. Maybe he was being smart and pitching to Comerica. He had a big drop in his HR/FB. I have not looked at the game log from his 28 out perfecto, but I'd be curious about whether there were a lot of flies that stayed in the ballpark. He's not better than Lannan, and you could argue that Stammen with a better strand percentage would be a better pitcher (and at this point Blue, SSB and few others are rolling their eyes, but that is more of an indication how mediocre Galarraga is than an expectation for a Stammen perfect game and slot in the rotation.)
According to BR this is how it breaks down:
Groundouts: 15 (counting the one that should have been an out but was called wrong, officially 14 with a single)
Flyball outs: 5 (3 were deep)
Lineouts: 4 (2 were deep)
Strikeouts: 3 (2 swinging)
For comparison here are the breakdowns for Halladay and Braden as well:
Flyball outs: 6 (2 deep, 2 pop)
Lineouts: 2 (both deep)
Strikeouts: 11 (5 swinging)
Flyball outs: 6 (3 deep)
Lineouts: 5 (1 deep)
Strikeouts: 6 (2 looking)
Not that it proves a whole lot about Galarraga but the numbers in his perfect game would depict a much more focused player who attacked with a plan versus Braden who seemed to be all over the place. Halladay obviously had the most impressive perfect game with more Ks than both Galarraga and Braden combined.