You think a link from a carb manufacturer may be a little biased? I know what they're trying to say, but broad sweeping statements (like about atomization) aren't the whole truth.

Your quicker revving argument is pointless. It doesn't have anything to do with the carb at all, just the intake like you said. Put one of the carb replacement throttle body setups on that intake and then the comparison is valid. Runner length is there for a reason, short runners don't make low end power, it doesn't matter what kind of fuel delivery you have. It's physics. Carbs can't be used on longer runners because of fuel pooling, poor distribution, etc., but that's not a problem at all when you can slap an injector wherever you want it.
One of the reasons that big dog racers still use carbs is that if the difference is small enough (or null), there isn't any reason to use an EFI setup. In that case, I'd say use a carb and save a lot of headache. IHRA toyed with EFI but I think they backed off because of cost. Many racing classes don't allow things like EFI for this reason, and you have to play by the rules. EFI for racing is hugely more expensive than EFI for the street, because of the cost of motorsport-grade components, etc.

Just for sake of argument, if carb'd cars "run harder" why doesn't anyone in the top levels of circuit racing (IRL, Champ, WRC, LMP1/2, GT, JGTC, BTCC, DTM, F1/F3/F3000, etc) use carbs? If carbs were superior for power, where are they?? Seems like NASCAR and drag racing are the only high level motorsport classes where carbs are still used.. They also use decades old engine design too.. but that's another argument in itself..