No, of course. not. What if Federer had won Wimbledon 8 times and never lost there to anyone? In such a scenario, he would have a total of 56 match wins there. But what if Djoker had played there every year since 2006 and gotten to the finals every year but never won it? He'd have 66 match wins there. Using your formula, Djoker would be the greater Wimbledon player than Fed.
Making the semis or even finals of tournaments but then losing in the final is not something that resonates with very many tennis historians, ex-players or anyone else. They lost the tournament, they don't get bonus points in legacy terms for making a final. For instance, Lendl made the finals of the USO 8 straight years but managed to win it "only" three times. Lendl himself regards this as a negative, as he's mentioned many times. Pete gets massive legacy points because his W/L ratio in slams is 14-4. Had he gotten to 10 more finals and lost them all, it would be 14-14. Almost nobody argues that a slam final for an ATG is something praiseworthy. It's 1200 points and that's it.