No, that would be phenomenally stupid. You would do what teams actually do, and look at their recent playing history.

Note that this is also entirely possible for engineers.

How exactly? Most people cannot take their code with them and show off. It belongs to previous employers, and please do not begin with the "show me your GitHub" - it's unrealistic to expect people to devote their life 100% to coding. Just as I wouldn't expect a carpenter to build houses for fun in his spare time, I do not expect programmers to spend their spare time in front of computers. In fact I believe that socially it's a benefit if they have other hobbies.

And if someone turned up with code from their previous employer, that'd surely be a huge red flag anyway.

First, most programmers have at least some code they can show you. Stop fretting about the 5% who don’t. If you give up here simply because you have a theory about programmers “devoting their life to coding”, you lose.

Second, you call their references. Yes, really. I know it’s not “objective”. Do it anyway. You will learn a lot. Really.

Third, look around for other people they’ve worked with, who weren’t listed as references. Call some of them. See if you get different opinions.

If your candidate truly, honestly has no code available, no enthusiastic references, and you can’t find anyone who worked with them who will vouch for their skill, then do you really want to hire them?

Finally, yes: do a trivial fizzbuzz coding test to filter out the total fakes.

Listening to coders complain, you’d think that nobody else in the world hired anyone, ever. Let go of your need to make hiring a failure-proof system, and you’ll discover a bigger world.

Most junior programmers have code to show, and most of the time I don't use it for anything. I'd rather do some FizzBuzz level whiteboard that we spend some time discussing and extend on. It gives a far better picture of their future as a developer. I know this excludes some, but that's the trade off I'm making.

I call references every time, but calling around willy nilly is not a good idea. Apart from the fact that it's not legal, most of the time I get "Yes I've worked with X as a developer for Y years" and nothing more.

You’re exaggerating or you are an extreme exception.

Given the number of qualifiers (“successful senior programmers”, “private code”) I strongly suspect you’re just trying to find a reason to justify your opinion.

What I see in your comment is someone who has decided the answer, and refuses to consider alternatives.

They are fathers, amateur musicians, or like to restore old cars. Just to mention a few things. Could they spend 5-10 hours weekly writing code and hacking things together? Yes, but that would be a significant chunk of their spare time, so understandably they do not.

Graduates?

> no enthusiastic references, and you can’t find anyone who worked with them who will vouch for their skill

This will make your diversity even worse unless you're extremely careful with it.

I do think that coding tests have more of a role for new grads, though.

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.

If every basketball team did that, every player would practice for that 2 minutes of play and you'd have no idea if they would handle an entire game.

The effect is the same for developers: interviewing developers practice for coding tests; memorize common interviewing patterns, quick solutions, and junior level algorithm stuff from their university days.

If you were interviewing a player, you'd probably look to their past experience and teams they played on, their positions on the court, and you'd check with their teammates.