there's no need to tell people how well it does in the ubers environment because almost nobody uses it.
This is a quote I take particular issue with.
Why does usage matter when we're discussing the viability of a pokemon? It doesn't matter if a poke gets 1% usage or 100% usage if it can do its job effectively. As you said yourself, the ladder is complete ass, which further proves that viability and usage aren't necessarily correlated.
Look at Bisharp. That is a solid C rank pokemon (in my eyes it could even be B rank.) Yet in this month's usage statistics, it trails in at a measly 122 iirc. Does that make Bisharp unviable, or not worth ranking because so few people use it? I wouldn't say so, as it turns out Bisharp is quite the underrated threat.
In fact, I propose the exact opposite. We
must rank rare or underrated threats in order to encourage a diverse and enjoyable metagame. I completely understand the mindset of not wanting to add pokes that are irrelevant or just terrible, and indeed they are numerous, but the diamonds in the rough need to be added.
Sawsbuck is not just a random poke I've pulled out my ass. I've tested it extensively. And I can conclude that Sawsbuck is essentially a faster, weaker, sun version of Kabutops. SD and good coverage make it a potent late game threat (it really does lack the beef to run CB though) or revenge killer. Nothing with a physical defense stat below 95 is really safe from Sawsbuck.
Sawsbuck's niche is apparent: A powerful late game cleaner/revenge killer for sun teams that don't/can't afford to use a choice scarfer. That would put it at least in D rank.