No, not really. We typically use zero to represent the absence of a value or a lack of a quality, while bad is the opposite of good and represents something that has negative qualities. So while the two terms may seem related, they describe two completely different conditions.
To put it more simply, it's often said that zero is nothing, and something (even if it's bad) is better than nothing. So while "not good" may be seen as a lower quality than what we might want, it's still something whereas zero is nothing.
In other words, we may not actively want something that is "not good," but it's still better to have something than nothing. Of course, this all depends on the context, and there can be cases (like with food or money) where having something bad can be worse than having nothing. But in general, "not good" is better than having zero.
