The long answer is more complicated, but the simple answer is no.
Good games can be made without crunch, and bad games can be made with crunch. The developer’s process, while invariably tied to the product, doesn’t necessarily determine the quality of the product, which is what I’m interested in when buying it.
Put another way, would you buy a shitty game just because the developers were treated nicely?
This isn’t like fur, where purchasing a product encourages the practice. Crunch may be tied to consumer demand if you follow it down the value chain, but it’s more a reflection of publisher pressures and failures in studio management (as @PsychoFish mentioned above) .
A boycott (through not buying the games they make) would likely add even more pressure on the developers that suffered making it (poor sales, no bonuses, job losses), and does nothing to resolve the aforementioned factors that led to the pressure in the first place.
The pressure it puts on the publishers would likely also just lead to more pressure on the developers who need to deliver through sales, resulting in a pretty shitty vicious circle.
And this is where we can go down a rabbit hole about the gaming business - and business generally - as a whole.
Instead of doing that, I’d say the best (?) way to prevent these practices is for developers to unionise or get into a position that they can get the leverage to negotiate better working conditions. But it has to be done at scale, because unless everyone agrees to it, companies will always find people who are willing to work under these conditions for their craft.
As with most things, you kind of wish it didn’t have to get to that point, but regulation will have to step in where shitty businesses fail to check themselves before they wreck themselves.
But I’m always going to buy a great game that interests me - and I think the developers who worked so hard on that would want that.