Yes, Steph is and always will be better at shooting than Trae. Luckily, we're adults and we're able to understand that offense is more than shooting.

2nd year Steph:

Assist rate: 28.1%
Turnover rate: 16.4%
Free throw rate: .216

2nd year Trae:

Assist rate: 46.1%
Turnover rate: 16.0%
Free throw rate: .448

No one would argue that Trae is a better shooter than Steph. He's not, and he likely won't ever be, as Steph is probably the greatest shooter who ever lived. But compared to second year Steph, Trae's PG skills are miles ahead-- he's a significantly better passer, and even though his assist rate is significantly higher, his turnover rate is *lower.* He also gets to the free throw line at a significantly higher rate.

These are the big reasons why the following stats are what they are:

2nd year Steph:

True shooting percentage: .595
PER: 19.4

2nd year Trae:

True shooting percentage: .598
PER: 24.5

Even though Steph is the better shooter, Trae has the slightly better true shooting percentage, because Trae gets to the line much more, Trae has a slightly better 2 point shooting percentage, and Trae takes a higher rate of 3s than Steph did, meaning that even with lower shooting percentages from distance and the stripe, Trae is generating points per possession at a slightly more efficient rate.

I also posted the PER here because you've been trying to knock Trae's efficiency, when, in terms of on-the-floor production across the board, there's no real denying that Trae's offense is currently more efficient. He's a less efficient pure shooter, but he's more efficient at nearly everything else on offense.

2nd year Steph:

Win shares per 48: .128
Offensive plus/minus: 3
Defensive plus/minus: -.7
Plus/minus: 2.3
VORP: 2.7

2nd year Trae:

Win shares per 48: .145
Offensive plus/minus: 6.5
Defensive plus/minus: -2.1
Plus/minus: 4.3
VORP: 3.2

All the advanced numbers match the eye test too. All of the things mentioned above result in higher positive impact on the floor-- higher win share per 48, better plus minus (more than *double* Steph's on offense), better value over replacement player. It'd be one thing if Trae was only ahead in, like, one of these things... but if you're better in *all* of them? Then you may have to consider that Trae is better offensively than Steph was at this point in his career.

And, worth noting that what I said above about Trae's awful defense also applies here too. Those defensive plus minus numbers are staggeringly low, and that too matches the eye test. I know you said "oh guys like Kyrie and Steph were never known for their defense"-- of course they aren't, no one argued that. But it's a lot easier to be a winning team if you have a star with mediocre defense than if you have a star with possibly the worst defense in the entire league. You may suggest that bad is bad and the incremental differences don't matter... but they pretty clearly do.

(Not that all of this information will matter, as I'm sure someone will just reply with "you and your advanced metrics, all that matters is shooting numbers!" or something. I mostly just posted it for any discerning adult interested in seeing these numbers. Because Trae offensively really is doing some special stuff this season, and comparing it with Steph, one of the greats on offense in the history of the league, really helps contextualize just how special Trae's offense is this year.)