Speaking about OCaml too, OCaml throws away the types after the typechecking, so in a way you could even argue that the types themselves are a form of macros over the untyped lambda form, which sounds pretty close to Lisp. The dichotomy of Lisp and Haskell is a false one.
Maybe the dichotomy would be better as "static" vs "dynamic", but about the language/runtime, not the typing. For example, in Lisp, you have REPL-driven development, where you know errors will happen but you can easily correct them, while in Haskell you try to minimize the errors with the help of the compiler and once the system is done you usually have to recompile it.
To that end, there are type systems in some languages (turnstile in racket comes to mind) that are implemented entirely using macros.
Turnstile isn't enough to model certain type systems (for reasons too complex to reasonably cover here), but it's interesting to see that types-as-macros-over-the-untyped-lambda-form has been done to a reasonable degree of success.
Maybe the dichotomy would be better as "static" vs "dynamic", but about the language/runtime, not the typing. For example, in Lisp, you have REPL-driven development, where you know errors will happen but you can easily correct them, while in Haskell you try to minimize the errors with the help of the compiler and once the system is done you usually have to recompile it.