Pointless thread. Arguing which tank is "the best" on the basis of who would win in a heads-on engagement is the reason why these threads never get anywhere.
That is not what the thread is really about, the OP asked if the Tiger B had the capability to knock out the IS-2 in tank combat over long distances (which is only one part of armoured warfare), but it is true (and tank duels are the image of WW2 stuck in peoples heads), there is a trade-off to be found in each system (and intangible factors are often ignored).
However, you can measure the combat rating of an AFV and say something about its overall survivability on the battlefield. In a prolonged war of attrition, nations undergo a natural arms race. Assigning a combat value to a weapon system is a viable method in military studies.
The reason why this is often avoided is either the lack of data, or bias, so people present a cluster of random figures (often less valuable information). Especially evaluations such as, "destroyed by type" are scarce. Cleaning the losses for AT gunfire, factoring in environmental effects, doctrines/utilization of the weapon, leadership, experience, morale, logistics, mission factors, duration of the mission, posture, repair services, the cooperation of all arms (here: of the anti tank troops) etc., is generally more useful. Categories such as Knocked out and damaged can be illuminating, as well as looking at irrecoverables (to measure lethality, pH/pK). Alternatively, munitions expenditure is of significance.
Weapon systems may be taken out of commission should their overall combat worth diminish. It also depends on how it may adapt, upgrades can prolong the lifetime of an AFV (to a certain degree). Battlefield control is advantageous for salvage/recovery, hence the number of vehicles which are completely lost to the troops (especially due to abandonment) might drop. Of course, you will have to observe longer periods in an analysis, before jumping to conclusions.