Unlike basketball, coding is not reproducible and has no clear rules nor set of tools even. Thus your analogy is flawed from the outset.
Additionally, a person who can adapt but has lower specific testing skill might actually be better at everything. As in your coach example, a slightly rusty to player from years past might be better than slightly better new guy with no track record. You're taking a gamble either way.
The lowest rung coding test is only good to filter out people who cannot code at all, and that if simple enough. They tend to be stupidly worded though instead.
Trying for anything tough tests for specific tricks, tooling and skills. Giving a longer time task is comprehensive but rules against people who are actually busy, presumably working, thus already kind of tested.
Additionally, a person who can adapt but has lower specific testing skill might actually be better at everything. As in your coach example, a slightly rusty to player from years past might be better than slightly better new guy with no track record. You're taking a gamble either way.
The lowest rung coding test is only good to filter out people who cannot code at all, and that if simple enough. They tend to be stupidly worded though instead.
Trying for anything tough tests for specific tricks, tooling and skills. Giving a longer time task is comprehensive but rules against people who are actually busy, presumably working, thus already kind of tested.