Very much so while also suppressing a lot of the regional nobles who had produced a number of soldier emperors in his youth. It was good for his dynasty in removing rivals and also made the ordinary people very loyal to the Macedonian dynasty but when that, compounded by the intrigues of the bureaucracy produced a couple of generations of almost total lack of leadership things went to hell.
I do recall reading that the Turks were actually willing to withdraw from Anatolia on receipt of a large amount of gold which Romanos IV Diogenes' was trying to obtain when he was overthrown. That's a possible butterfly but it would require some strong force rebuilding the military and constraining the bureaucracy else you have a similar problem further down the line.
Even after that and with most of Anatolia in chaos with Turks rampaging all over the place the response of the main figures was to fight another war over who established a new dynasty. Which greatly weakened the European armies that had escaped the losses in Anatolia and then of course the Normans started attacking as well.
All in all a mess due to the lack of clear leadership emerging at any time after Basil's death in 1025!
Did the Byzantines allow illegitimate children to secure the throne? If so, maybe Basil II should have been encouraged to take a mistress or two or three or four or five.