No, when I say balanced, I refer to where you are positioned in the scope of the overall wheelbase. If one frame has a chainstay length of 405mm, and another is 415mm, you can set your saddle on both frames to be 4cm behind the bottom bracket but you are in a different location in relation to the center of the rear wheel. Apply this same rationale to the front triangle.
What this is doing is putting more/less weight over different parts of the bike. You can set any frame of relatively similar size to have matching contact points for you (the rider), but it doesn't mean your weight, and therefore your "balance," is going to be the same. If you are weighted more heavily on the front of the frame, for example, you should notice quicker steering and cornering, but it may come at the cost of having a "loose" rear that feels as if it wants to jump and skip out on you.
Contact points are certainly what most people refer to when they speak of geometry. Of this I am not making a case. I am merely saying as important as contact points are, and they are the first issue to contend with when looking for a new frame, they don't represent the entire picture. Once they are established, the next step is to see if the bike is balanced. Does it feel planted when cornering? Does the rear wheel act skittish at times? Does the front wheel want to pull out of high-speed turns? Does the front wheel lift during sprinting?
I say this from experience. I have had several frames set up with the exact same contact points, yet the bikes are completely different on the road. Sure, they may feel very similar when traveling in a straight line in the flats... but how do they feel when the ground rises and falls, turns left and right. And especially how do they feel when you turn the volume up to 11.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." William Munny