What is the difference between these two fallacies?

Yeah I kinda figured this out I think. For example if someone tries to say that there is an ongoing genocide in japan and shows 3 events/pictures that support their statement, that would be the texas sharpshooter because you are making a hypothesis and testing it with something that you already have. While this can also correctly be called cherry picking, the texas sharpshooter seems to be more specific, that all texas sharpshooter fallacies are cherry picking but not all cherry picks are the texas sharpshooter. One example in contrast of cherry picking would be selective attention meaning that you focus only on the good stuff without really making a hypothesis, that is that you use only evidence that is said to have the good stuff, without mentioning the bad stuff, the, "bad stuff" doesn't necessarily have to exist in the texas sharpshooter fallacy, but rather using examples to prove something.

Would you say texas sharpshooter is a form of cherry picking, specific to statistics? Basically cherrypicking a data cluster and claiming it is significant, while ignoring wider trends in the data.

Yes, I think this is an accurate distinction.

Each seems related to the what we hear from "spin doctors" who work hard to describe situations in a light that is most positive to their cause.  These two approaches are most useful in that context.