Darren, I did notice the relationship. The spatial reference stayed the same, so the unit of measure stayed 1 m. The cell size stayed at 100 x 100. I looked at the visible and full extents and they are the same. Just visually assessing the rasters, they appear the same. I am kind of stumped what could have changed.
Thanks for the link. I was trying to find something like that, but got lost in the terminology.
You and Dan both took care of the main question, which confirmed what I was thinking about cells and their sizes. But now it begs a different question. If the cells are 100 x 100 m, or 1 ha, and there is a total of ~1,900,000 cells in the starting raster, doesn't that mean that the raster represents the same number of ha? That doesn't seem right, since the area of interest is not more than 25,000 ha.
Can Pixel Depth cause a difference? In the first raster it's 16 bit and in the reclassified raster, it's 8 bit. Is it possible that my ASCII table didn't actually reclassify all of the entries that I wanted it to, thus leaving those out? For example, I combined all tree types into one category for trees and there were 15 or 16 tree types. If it missed a bunch of those, that would seem to change the total number of cells. How would I verify the reclassify by ASCII worked properly?