I'm glad you can tell the difference between green and black, but you completely missed why my post was in jest.
Reggie is the choice for a late game three. He played in a world where there was a difference between a 12 ft shot and a 25 ft shot, and their respective approach to the game should be obvious.
The part that's in jest is where I assumed that Oscar, because he's clearly a superior player should have a supreme stat line in every facet of the sport that it rendered something as unique as the invention of the three point shot as insignificant(the big O did shoot 2-18 in the two years he played with a three point line). It's jestful not because oscar wouldn't be a better three point shooter than Reggie, but because there is literally no stats-believer that would feel that 3 pt fg% is a fair comparison for two players almost 2 decades apart, and wouldn't recognize the difference in approach to jump shots between the eras.
3pt % tells a lot. What it tells me about Oscar Robertson is that it was never a priority for him to develop an outside game, because he only played 2 seasons with the three point line and managed to score 6 points on 18 attempts. That does, in fact, make him a terrible three point shooter. But any statistician worth their salt would understand why he was terrible. Eye-testers would just believe he would be as good at that as his contemporaries, with literally no evidence than the lore behind his name.