This is a really strange article. MVC vs. JSP / static content is not apples to apples, like the first test was.
When you return a view, it isn't static content. Making a call to a controller is also not the same as serving up an HTML page - the controller is instantiated, the action is invoked, and depending on the type of action, a model could be instantiated and bound. It isn't like creating a simple ASP.NET page that has "Response.Write" in the page load, since the ASP.NET page itself is much closer to what a JSP page is.
There isn't really a circumstance for static HTML in ASP.NET, since it all gets rolled into a Response.Write method in the end. I imagine a JSP page does the same thing, and on both ends, the resulting HTML gets cached. This would be the "optimization" he's witnessing from Tomcat. ASP.NET does the same thing.
You'd have to do some stuff in Java to get to the MVC level of complexity, and not just use Tomcat. Vanilla ASP.NET is a more appropriate tool for comparison. As noted in an above comment, you'd probably have to compare ASP.NET MVC to Spring.
Hell, classic ASP performs better than ASP.NET MVC.