No, Borg after all only tried to win three slams. 11 from three opportunities each year is much better than 11 from four opportunities each year. Divide 11 by three and multiply by four and you have 14 2/3.
Doesn't matter though. If Borg didn't play the AO, Borg didn't play the AO. Should Connors then be elevated above Lendl and Agassi because he only played the AO twice in his career (winning once) and didn't play the FO for five years? Does Laver get speculated results added to his actual results because he didn't compete in the slams between '63 to '67? By your argument – If Nadal only played the FO and nothing else, does he get speculated results from the AO, Wimbledon and USO added to his results?